The Anatomy of a Conspiracy: Final Thoughts on Charlie Kirk

The FBI and Legacy media took their own life in the days after September 10

Or is it?

It’s not a trick question. It’s obviously not a square. But is it a circle? That is a much harder question to answer.

What is a circle? Mathematically it’s the locus of points equidistant from a single point on a single plane. There’s no way for anyone to confirm with 100% certainty that the figure above is a circle. One would have to measure every point on the perimeter of the figure and confirm that it is the same distance from the center. The first problem is that there is an infinite number of points to be measured. The second is that there will always be uncertainty when measuring anything.

My point here is that for most intents and purposes it is a circle, and, it is definitely not a square. There cannot not be any disagreement about that.

Our Federal Law Enforcement and mainstream media, with their insistence on pinning the murder of Charlie Kirk on Tyler Robinson is like them selling us the idea that that circular appearing figure above is a square. They are lying, and it seems like they are hoping nobody will notice and if some do, it will soon be forgotten.

Here are the results of a recent google search when I asked “What happened to Charlie Kirk?”

The lone suspect is Tyler Robinson. He has appeared in court. He will face the death penalty. Believe us. It’s a square and the courts will rule it as such, whether or not the young Mr. Robinson gets “suicided” first.

I have been interested in learning what actually happened to Charlie Kirk and why. In other words, I want to know how round that figure up there is. Is it a circle? I will never know, but curiosity pushes me forward.

It’s NOT a square

First things first, the case against Tyler Robinson is obviously a frame. The text exchange purportedly between him and his romantic interest ties up all the loose ends like the last minute of every episode of Scooby-Doo.

So what? The problem is that this fabricated exchange was released by the FBI as part of their evidence against Robinson. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the organization also in charge of the Epstein files, is either naive enough to believe that this text thread was authentic or stupid enough to think that the public would buy it. It’s like they are not even trying to fake an investigation, let alone do one. Their incompetence is so monumental it invites us to ask if they are trying to signal the public to disregard whatever they conclude. Blink twice if you are being blackmailed, Mr. Patel.

There has been no autopsy.

The bullet which was fired from a high powered rifle which every gun expert on social media says would have blown the young Kirk’s head clean off was never recovered.

Without the bullet, there is no way to determine whether the weapon and Robinson was involved in the assassination.

What little video footage officially released to the public looks like it was taken from a security camera from a 7-11 in the last century.

To my understanding, “Lee Harvey” Robinson has not confessed to doing anything. But neither has he emphatically pleaded that he was “just a patsy”. Perhaps that is why he is still alive today.

Even more damning to the official story is the dogged reporting of another outspoken conservative voice and Kirk’s friend, Candace Owens, who spoke to Tyler Robinson’s family. His parents didn’t think their son, a model student and not a “gun enthusiast”, was involved.

According to Owens’ sources, Robinson and family reported to the police after a family friend who was a former law enforcement official warned them that authorities had pinned Kirk’s murder on Tyler and a violent confrontation would likely ensue. Tyler Robinson, it seems, reported to authorities to clear his name, not to confess.

And no, Robinson never sent that effusive series of texts that described his love for his boyfriend/roommate, political leanings of his father, the location where he hid the murder weapon and how it came into his possession in the first place, all while eluding a massive manhunt.

Is it a circle?

The official story is preposterous. But what actually happened that afternoon?

I have listened to a number of theories, one from Chris Martenson who is intelligent and has taken ample time to do a bit of ballistics analysis (given the fact that the FBI won’t do any) and mapping of the grounds to conclude that Kirk was shot from the front, but more to his left and from a higher position than where Robinson was apparently perched:

I think Martenson is sincere and smart. However there are some inconsistencies between his hypothesis and what we could observe.

First is the “wound” in Kirk’s left neck. Chris thinks it’s an entry wound from a bullet fired from a smaller caliber weapon than what is claimed Robinson used. He’s in agreement with most of the shooting experts who agree that a bullet large enough to create an entry wound that large would have decapitated Kirk. He thus concludes that whatever bullet struck Kirk wasn’t from Tyler Robinson’s rifle.

He further notes that there was not pulsatile blood emanating from the wound indicating that the major artery in the neck, the Left carotid, was either spared or that the heart was not pumping. But in my estimation, the anatomic location of the supposed entry wound would have transected the carotid artery and spared the heart. We should have seen pulsatile blood spurting from Charlie’s neck if he was hit from the front at that location.

Others have pointed out that it appears that Kirk was actually shot from behind. Some believe they could see the projectile in a single frame an instant before Kirk was jolted by an impact and immediately slumped.

A third hypothesis offered by Stew Peters and X poster John Bray was that Kirk was unknowingly wearing a microphone that housed a shaped charge and projectile on his right chest. When detonated the projectile was propelled from Right to Left, emerging at the base of his Left neck. Interestingly, Martenson rejected this possibility for reasons that were unclear to me.

A projectile moving through the anterior R chest and emerging at the L neck could have transected the aortic arch and/or the origin of the L carotid artery. This would explain the lack of pulsatile blood from the L neck while resulting in massive internal hemorrhaging.

On the other hand, it seems that we have quickly forgotten that the initial footage of Charlie’s demise showed something much different than what is available now where close-ups of his body look photo-shopped and a red blotch appears on his neck for a couple of frames.

Friends who saw the unadulterated video describe a massive amount of blood pouring from his neck before he slumped out of view. This seems to have been completely removed from every social media platform. Without having seen it myself how can I comment on it? Well, if it wasn’t so gruesome, why then has it been deemed unfit for most viewers? If there was enough bleeding to violate community standards, why do we not see even a trace of blood on Charlie’s white shirt? In other words, how much of all this footage has been edited?

It’s entirely possible that his L carotid artery was transected and his heart was furiously pumping blood out of his neck. If that were the case it could be explained by a shaped charge as well as a gun shot from the front as Martenson theorizes. It all depends on slight variations of where the charge was placed on his chest or where the “real” shooter struck Kirk’s neck. It’s interesting to me how quickly we can forget how a story was initially reported. Paying attention to initial reporting is very important if you are skeptical of the media.

There’s no way to be certain. Especially given the remarkably mediocre close-up images of Kirk the moment he was fatally injured. It’s impossible to know with any reasonable confidence the nature of the injuries Kirk sustained that led to his death. That would require a post-mortem examination, i.e. an autopsy, which apparently wasn’t of interest to the FBI and apparently to most of the public at large either.

However the most interesting portion of the scant video to which the public has access is around the moments after Kirk slumped to the ground:

One of the body guards who stood in front of Kirk and facing forward leapt over a table and seemed to grab something from Kirk’s person within instants of the audible gunshot/explosion. He was immediately met by a man in brown who quickly handed him something. The body guard, apparently unconcerned that the person whose life he was assigned to protect had just been offed, fled the scene.

Even more suspicious is that the man in brown can be seen manipulating something in the sleeve of his left arm simultaneous with the explosion/gunshot. Was he triggering a detonator? Is this what he handed to the body guard?

At least one country (the only one?) has been accused of having used a similar tactic to kill or maim thousands of Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon less than a year before.

CNN reported:

“Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, tacitly acknowledged his country’s role the day after the pager attack, praising “excellent achievements, together with the Shin Bet, together with Mossad.” … The second high-ranking security source said that he had examined one of the compromised pagers and witnessed its controlled explosion. He told CNN that the explosive material was “laced” inside the pager’s lithium battery and virtually undetectable. He added that he had never seen anything like it.”

We can never know what happened with certainty. We can be sure that

• it wasn’t Tyler Robinson,

• the FBI isn’t doing an investigation—it’s involved in a cover-up and

• legacy media doesn’t seem to care.

The point is, it’s definitely not a square.

Is History Repeating Itself?

Sixty-two years after the biggest political assassination in the United States the FBI has a much bigger challenge on their hands. The most famous amateur video ever shot, the Zapruder film, captured the literal decapitation of the USG. The POTUS placed his hands directly over his throat where the first shot entered. Seconds later half of his skull went flying backwards causing First Lady Jacky Kennedy to frantically scramble to grab the biggest piece of her husband’s cranium which landed at the rear of the Presidential Limousine.

Fortunately for the FBI and their puppeteers at the time, the public never saw that footage for a full 13 years. How would any reasonable person accept that those bullets were fired from behind and six floors above by a lone gunman who pleaded to the public that he was just a patsy 48 hours before a “fanatical fan” of the POTUS, Jack Ruby (née Jacob Leon Rubenstein), wandered into the basement of a Dallas prison and shot Oswald in cold blood before he could testify in open court?

It’s also reminiscent of the “collapse” of the twin towers in the days following September 11th which were endlessly aired on mainstream media for a few days after those events and then no more. Like Kirk’s murder, it would be too triggering for the public. This is the real reason why that footage was pulled from the airways:

But suspiciously kept from public scrutiny are the numerous videos from external security cameras of the Pentagon on the day that a passenger jet flown by a particularly unskilled amateur pilot steeply descended, banked and skimmed the ground to strike the most protected building on the face of the Earth on the first floor and vaporized.

Is it any surprise that the public has a problem accepting this story? Wouldn’t it behoove our authorities to show us just a couple seconds of AA flight 77 approaching the citadel of American military might unmolested by our extraordinarily sophisticated (and expensive) fighter jets to quiet the “conspiracy theorists” once and for all? Apparently not.

Today, video clips of Charlie Kirk’s assassination are readily accessible. However the moments in question, those immediately following the shot/explosion are being scrubbed or doctored. Why?

It’s because this is how a psy-op is conducted. Withhold information. Create a different story from the jump. Admonish those who remain incredulous. Lionize and immortalize those who were murdered as champions of the public and not enemies of a shadowy authority and blame their deaths on somebody else.

This was the topic of an excellent discussion I had with host of the Collapse Life podcast, Zahra Sethna, last week. Here’s a brief segment:

You can watch a few more where I offer my thoughts on

• how consensus can be easily manufactured by interests that rely on public trust

• how to use your intuitive abilities properly to navigate complicated topics

• how to make in roads in conversations with people who seem hopelessly closed minded around their own biases

as well as the whole conversation here:

Is 9/10 the new 9/11? Dr. Madhava Setty on truth, fear, and forbidden questions

The Collapse Life podcast and newsletter attacks a broad range of propaganda around many topics including health, finance, false-flags and much more. Please consider supporting their work.

They also recently showcased the work of my friend, Brook DeLorme. Among other things, Brook is a talented author who has recently published the book “Apophenia Gold”.

She has been exploiting perhaps the most important technique in constructing or steering public opinion: story telling.

Writes Collapse Life:

“Oh, you’re just seeing things”

Anyone noticing inconvenient patterns over the last few years has heard that brush-off many times before. What if “seeing things” isn’t a form of madness but survival?

In the latest Collapse Life podcast, host Zahra Sethna dives into the themes of a new novel called Apophenia Gold, which uses the art of storytelling to wrestle with the reality of evil and the challenge of discernment. Brook DeLorme, writing under the pen name Rose C. Lane, takes on the question most institutions prefer we avoid: how do we deal with evil when it’s everywhere and yet rarely named?

The conversation covers why some people recognize the patterns and others remain blind; how storytelling becomes the only way to work with overwhelming truths; and why revelation — or ‘apocalypse’ — is less about fire and brimstone than about exposing what has long been hidden.

If you’ve ever felt like the official story didn’t add up, and we know many of you feel this, you’ll recognize this terrain. And you’ll appreciate this read.”

I read it. Twice. I hope you will too.

In case you are interested, the figure isn’t a circle either.

Please leave your thoughts in the comments.