Madhava- so thankful that you and others are documenting the inconsistencies in the constructed story carefully and conscientiously. That’s what your book was for me: a document of all the inconsistencies that I wanted to gift to friends 😁.
Like so many others, I never saw the exploding building footage until after 2020 (didn’t have a tv when it happened, didn’t spend much time around tvs...)
Thanks so much for your kind words, and also to Zahra’s for her thoughtful interview!
Thank you for your research into this, Madhava. While I try to keep all possibilities in mind, right from the get go it looked to me like a Mossad operation. To other accounts suggesting the killing was faked and Charlie was still alive (due to lack of continuous blood flow and splatter) I thought the notion of a fatal shooting by a rooftop sniper might indeed be faked but that Mossad killed him deviously in some other way. Hence I appreciate the Stew Peters theory about the hidden microphone with a shaped charge and projectile that was detonated by the guy in the brown shirt, and which caused mostly massive internal bleeding. Of course they would want to whisk the body away quickly and avoid any kind of medical attention or post mortem examination. And given all the support Kirk's organization received from zionist donors, it's likely they also provided him with top notch Israeli security companies and bodyguards--how convenient for cleverly arranging to take him out after he started having doubts and backing away from his deal with the devil...
I wonder if he isnt dead...that see you in valhalla comment kash made is curious...possible reference to Goat Island in NZ witness protection...a Global Express left the local airport near the UVU campus and disabled adsb tracking....the background of both Kirk and Erika is weird as well....Kirks dad , lead architect on Trump tower...Erikas parents own/ed az tech a govt contractor...daddy headed up or created the isreali division of raytheon....sooo many aspects of this event smell pretty bad ...like surstromming bad...lol
Worth reading. Does a detailed analysis to figure out what was physically possible to rule out theories. Last summer, I did a very deep dive into the Trump shooting to figure out what was possible or not (was way ahead of most folks who fixated on "facts" that were not facts and didn't keep an open mind and dig into the primary material and try to sift the wheat from the chaff).
Note: I have NOT followed the Kirk shooting at all; just what I've seen in headlines and a bit on the Jimmy Dore Show. Instead, I've done a deep dive into the Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed "Henry Ford Study" and hope to post next week. I strongly recommend watching the Oct 13th premiere of the documentary "An Inconvenient Study" https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/
A garbage analysis. And completely archaic, based on his "facts" which we already know were outright fabrications by the FBI, completely untrue. And he focuses on the numerous obviously crackpot theories, rather than on the alternative rational theories, such the ones Martenson & RangeDayBro have presented. As well as Candace's much more substantiated and thorough description of the many details of the assassination, most of which the FBI just ignores. Lies of Omission.
Which facts upon which that analysis was based are 'outright fabrications'?
I used videos and the layout of the area as my main facts, nothing particular from the FBI itself.
Also, Martenson was mentioned, and shown to be close, but without properly explaining his choice for wound location, or why he did not allow for any variability, demanding that Tyler could not have made that 1 very specific shot, and that therefore there must have been a second shooter. Nah, that is stretching it way too far.
Start with the basics, and see from there what is and isn't possible or plausible.
Who said there was a second shooter? You seem to be fixed on this fable about Tyler Robinson being the shooter, something he is totally denying, (you actually believe that FBI text exchange?), and his family is denying. Pretty much the entire fable we've been hearing about Tyler is BS. Including some of the purported video of him, clearly having been faked. While video they must have that would prove it they won't show. Instead they show video after the fact which has strange anomalies in it, like disappearing shadows & pedestrians. And other videos of him walking shadow analysis put at a much later time than claimed.
So far we have zero reputable evidence of Tyler being the shooter or that his grandpa's gun being the weapon used.
And Martenson is of course claiming Tyler video is faked and he didn't shoot anyone. The real shooter was in a higher location, likely with a smaller caliber weapon. Other witnesses, who the FBI won't talk to vehemently reported a man on another building roof all dressed in black, just before the shooting. And even ran to the site and reported that to the police.
The idea that Tyler and the family is denying that he is the shooter, is something that came from Candace Owens, I believe, something stated without any proof/receipts. I reserve doubt until proof is presented for that rather important claim. Tyler Robinson had a pretrial hearing yesterday, with his new council, and their tactic was delay and avoid death penalty. No formal 'not guilty' plea was entered.
You believe Owens on her word, without evidence, and contrary to what Tyler and his defense team seem to be doing, yet you think I am fixed on a 'fable'?
I used 4 different videos of the shooting itself, and left all the other elements outside my analysis, for a reason.
All 4 videos, some saved the day Kirk was shot, after they were released within minutes/the hour, are congruent, which rules out tampering.
What I did was reconstruct the shooting itself, showing that the shot must have come from the front, either straight ahead or slightly to the right of Kirk, or within 30% from that centerline. Any other shot is impossible with the wound observed.
I’m not quite sure how we have ruled out hoax-assassination - as in Charlie Kirk is alive and well in some sunny clime. In reality - there is very scarce evidence that a crime took place - just a lot of cheesy witness interviews and videos.
Where do you believe he is now if he is alive? And why would he be willing to be kept from the public eye while the world moves on as if he is dead? If he is being kept against his will, what would be the purpose?
I have no idea where Mr. Kirk might be - but the world is a big place. Regarding Mr. Kirk's willingness - perhaps that is the intended endpoint of a farcical career. He has effectively served as a guided missile into the political landscape - setting the left and right at each other's throats - and now his work is done.
In any case, there is also a good case to be made that the Trump assassination attempt was also a hoax - the least of which is the miracle ear. Given that precedent - I truly don't understand the credulousness of the public regarding this "assassination".
To be more clear, I am wondering what you think would be the utility of keeping him alive but out of commission permanently. Whose purpose would that serve?
The purpose of keeping him alive is not dissuading further sleeper agents and intelligence assets.
I expect on recruitment, for reassurance and proof, they are taken to meet all the suicided and dead agents who are now retired and living happily after cosmetic surgery in a new country with their real wife ( not the one for the undercover project they were on.)
Then his wife is the greatest actress in history. Good lord. There were thousands of eyewitnesses to both shootings. And you are wrong about him “setting the left and right at each other’s throats"… that has been done since before he was alive. And most of that is directed at the throats of those on the right.
for the same reasons you write about we have no reason to believe he is dead. same as Epstein. the producers of these episodes are thinking way ahead... the psy op maybe started years ago.
Can you be more specific? I think there are very good reasons why he is dead. He was, in some sense, driving a movement to bring light to interests which have had a hand in tragedies going back quite a while. Sadly, he indicated this to his inner circle before going public with it explicitly. Little did he know...
I cannot think of a good reason why he would be kept alive. His value to the deep state was in the number of minds over which he had influence over. He was an important asset that was about to become a huge liability.
I'm not saying I think he is alive. I am saying that I/we have no good reason to believe 'anything' about the official story, which includes that Charlie Kirk was who everyone thinks he was. Seems to me, like 9/11, this event was planned a long time before it happened. I agree with you, the way the story is conveyed to us it is very believable. Because he was starting to go against Israel, he was taken out. This is pretty obvious. So obvious it sends a message to everyone: you're dead if you go against Israel. You know the oft quoted saying of William Casey that Barbara Honneger shared: "We'll know out disinformation system is in place when everything the public believes is false." Well, there may be some truth there.... So yes, within the context of what we've been told it makes perfect sense he would be assassinated. But everything we've been told may be a construction of the overlords. Those overlords, maybe aligned with sinister ETs, have extraordinary powers way beyond what we typically imagine. Kirk could have been an alien creation, or some weird cloned entity, that was designed just for this purpose. I am not arguing or asserting that this is true. I am saying it is possible. Back to Epstein for a second. I do think he is alive and well. Not one bit of evidence that he was killed, or ever in that cell.
Charlie Kirk being dead is part of the official story. I think that there are pretty sound reasons why he is dead, and no good reason why someone would want him alive but out of public view. Can you offer a good reason why the overlords would lie about this too?
Sure there are good reasons to believe he is dead. The official story has some believable parts, like the official 9/11 story. That's what makes those stories believable. That's how psy ops work. But to me, in both cases, though they have believable parts, the official stories are false, and were designed a long time before they were loosed on the public. How much went into creating those characters I do not know, and neither do you. Is Erika Kirk an innocent God fearing Christian woman who organically met Charlie and fell in love? Or was she an off spring of a military industrial agents and groomed for this role? What do we really know about Charlie? Just what the media has informed us, and the media almost always lies, like the overlords. I have no reason to believe anything they put out. And Charlie is surely one of their inventions. So his death is suspect as well.
Why final thoughts? Hopefully you will continue to track this? My first thought is, why do events like this become so squirrely, with so many strange and unusual aspects: autopsies that don't happen, strange behavior by "bodyguards", incomplete "footage" immediately released and never followed up, reporting of what "we know so far" that is never further examined, investigations that don't ever seem to happen--dogs that don't bark. It's getting curiouser and curiouser. I'll look forward to checking out both Collapse Life and Apophenia Gold as well, thanks for the tips!
Maybe the family did not want an autopsy? Justice Scalia’s family didn’t want one performed, either, and his death was suspicious. Their religious views may have prohibited them.
honestly, I gotta wait till the temperature goes down and we have a clearer picture of the actual evidence. there are so many different narratives and theories out there that it is impossible to determine the signal from the noise.
and there is a lotta noise on this one.
remember: to a hammer everything looks like a nail…
No way that was an exploding microphone. You watch videos of the Israeli exploding cell phones, they were very energetic events with debris flying everywhere.
You can't cause a projectile to push forward without generating at least an equal and opposite momentum. In fact a larger momentum since the explosions are very inefficient at directing energy, much moreso than a rifle or pistol. Instead you see the microphone fly forward after the shot. It and his shirt & skin would have been shredded by such an explosion.
Martenson's analysis is still quite compatible with the theory of a much smaller caliber like a .223 fired from his right side, and explains what was originally thought to be blood spray to be his necklace driven by the force of the cavitation explosion in his neck. As well as the billowing of his T-shirt too many people have gotten fixated on.
I am curious about how you know with 100% certainty that a shaped charge couldn't have been under charlie's shirt near the mic clip.
There seems to be a discharge of energy. Some of that could have been preferentially directed left ward and posteriorly.
It's also possible that it was just an explosive charge with no projectile that blew out his Right chest. Looking at the grainy footage of his Left neck the "wound" may be something that was photoshopped in.
I don't know. How do you know that there was "No way"?
As I said, Martenson's hypothesis is reasonable but also has some problems. I am just pointing them out. Do you disagree with me that a projectile moving R to L, anterior to slightly posteriorly and upward would have incapacitated Kirk instantaneously too?
No doubt such a projectile could have done so, but that would have to have been a bullet from a gun of some sort. That's completely different from hypothesizing some far-fetched notion of a shaped charge placed on his shirt somehow, like he wouldn't notice that, and imagine somehow you could make that drive a projectile through his body without an obvious energetic flash & explosion on his chest, with shrapnel moving in the opposite direction. As well as obvious damage to his chest and shirt. Just not feasible. Why not just claim a pistol round from that direction? A million X more probable.
The resolution of the videos that we have is not all we could wish, and may be creating artifacts that are hard to interpret. I think Martenson did about as well as he could with the materials he had.
I thought same re lavolier microphone...beginning to really think the whole thing was fake and staged...not as though the public intellect bar is very high...lol
I was not well aware of Charlie Kirk before his death. But seeing it on X was a shock and has affected me. I am not a committed “Christian” though I was raised Methodist (half-heartedly). But I do like Candace Owens and I’m a classical liberal-minded human. They were great friends and she is a full on mama tiger in trying to get to the bottom of all the lies. I admire that. Scapegoats make me sad, as most of us have been scapegoated at least once in our lives. Truth tellers make me proud and defiant and happy. Thank you for writing this. The government lies so routinely, with such facility, and no qualms at all, that it makes people feel crazy. Charlie is dead. He was killed right in front of thousands of people there and all of us watching it happen on X. He deserves justice, even if you don’t agree with everything he says politically.
She wasn’t invited to the funeral. That doesn’t sound like she was a “great friend”. She keeps talking about her “receipts” (an obnoxious term used this way) but hasn’t shown any, that I’ve seen anyway. All of her information is from unnamed “sources”. I’m not sure she is that credible.
You don’t know if “she was invited” or not, do you? You don’t. She said she got many texts asking her if she was going. Why would she go put herself there amidst that den of snakes, hmmm? I wouldn’t. She DOES have receipts… that’s just a figurative expression, if you didn’t know. She is immensely credible, far more so than his so-called friends who are covering up this intelligence operation. You should watch BOTH of Dr. Chris Martenson’s recent videos on his Peak Prosperity website. He did a great job with the Butler assassination story too. Charlie was betrayed by a lot of people, most of all, those awful Zionist freaks who funded TPUSA. We shame them, but you can’t shame the shameless.
How do you know she wasn't invited? And if not, how do you figure that wouldn't have meant she was her great friend. It could mean who ever is in charge of invitations, doesn't like her, maybe even his wife.
And a whole lot of her information is from named sources. And she claims to have the receipts to a lot of what she says, some of which we have seen, like the photo of him in the Dairy Queen. If people she says are telling her things that are untrue she could be sued, so she is covering her ass, but may have a deal to keep their names out of it, publicly.
So far her alternative story and timeline is self-consistent, whereas the FBI's story is a joke, and they ain't telling us anything. All these rumors about no autopsy floating around, including likely fake audio, total silence from the FBI. They could quash that in one line. They won't tell us anything but put out a long winded obviously fake text exchange, and just ignore any critiques of it.
Sorry dude, from what I've seen, kick the FBI out and put Candace in charge of the investigation, guaranteed 1000% improvement.
The center of the circle is a dimensionless point. How do you know the pin is centered upon it? There's no way to know with certainty if the distance measured from this pin to end of the string is the same throughout the path it traces. String and every other material has a modulus of elasticity. How do you know that the tension you are applying was absolutely constant throughout?
How do you know that the compass hasn't changed the length it defines as you were using it? How do you know that it hasn't slightly expanded from the warmth of your hand?
What is at the dynamic end of the compass? Something with dimensions obviously.
In any case, in order to even see the circle the width of the line that defines it must be non-zero too. How can you tell if the width of the line remains constant throughout?
We are always left with some uncertainty around anything that has to be measured. No tool is perfect.
I realize the point you are trying to make, that truly knowing something is difficult. But you have stretched your example to the point where it violates common sense. One can measure a circle with a pin and string--or with a compass--closely enough that you can be certain it is a circle for normal, practical purposes. It is when you are trying to do something really tricky, like, say navigate a satellite to an asteroid, that you need to get into precision measurement and all that implies.
My point is very simple. It is possible to know with 100% certainty about what isn't. Knowing what is with 100% certainty is much harder. Science is, in fact, the never ending pursuit to define what is. It's never ending because there are limits to what we can measure or even apprehend.
I use this example as a way to diffuse the antimony between people who think they know what happened for sure and attack people who disagree.
It's a waste of time. For all practical purposes we just have to come to agreement about what didn't happen instead of arguing about what did from a place of certainty.
And, I never said anything about "practical purposes". Of course we use things that are circular all the time. "Circle" however is a purely abstract concept when taken in it's purest sense.
Of course you are technically right. But, I raised the matter of "practical purposes" because we live in the world as it is and often have to make decisions about what to do. In the case of the murder of Charlie Kirk, it would be useful to know if the government has been lying to us, and to have some idea of what really happened. Getting into whether or not we can know the truth about anything is not helpful in this instance.
I agree with you partially. I think we can know the truth about what did not happen, but knowing the truth about what did happen is impossible. That was my point behind the circle and square. In other words, let's establish that we cannot know what happened with certainty and and instead come together around what DIDN'T happen.
Please do not be silly. People have been building structures on this basis for thousands of years. A Turkish friend of mine told me that after their mosque collapsed in an earthquake in their village the men of the village rebuilt the dome just by using a long rod. They stood in the centre of the building and swung the rod up and around to describe the dome's internal hemisphere. They did not need to do any complex equations, and they got a new dome and new building that way.
Stonehenge was built in the early neolithic by the same principle. Describing circles is simpler than making rectangles. No measuring is necessary, either of length or angle to get a perfect geometry.
So very many questions could be answered but the silence is now deafening. After the shock and awe, substantive reports have vanished.
The defensive posture of Israel is very suspicious. The rapidly quick clearance of the roommate is bizarre. The removal of cameras so quickly. The lack of autopsy. The refusal to release all available video footage in unedited form. The weird text exchange. The ballistic questions and trajectory.
I don't want to believe the worst but it's not looking good.
"Charlie Kirk was a central figure in promoting Trump’s propaganda through the Turning Point campaign aimed indoctrinating youth. His job was to tell impressionable youth that their futures, and their entire society, has been destroyed, not by billionaires and multinational banks, but rather by immigrants, “radical leftists,” and transgender activists.
He was purposely misleading citizens as part of an act of war on the citizens funded by, and for the benefit of, a tiny handful of multi-billionaire families. He was a major player in a criminal conspiracy involving multiple felony offenses."
"The narrative surrounding the shooting (“assassination” is the hyped-up term that the commercial media has adopted almost without exception) of Charlie Kirk started to fall apart about as soon as it was introduced in the news and circulated through social media.
As numerous articles have already detailed the inconsistencies (see Conspiracy Sarah’s “Take 3”) from the way Kirk fell, to the blood or lack of it, to the appearance of figures in the images that seem to be computer generated, to all too convenient “assassin” who is from a Trump supporter family, but was seduced into leftist thinking by what he read on Reddit, and has a trans lover to boot, I will not present an autopsy here."
Madhava- so thankful that you and others are documenting the inconsistencies in the constructed story carefully and conscientiously. That’s what your book was for me: a document of all the inconsistencies that I wanted to gift to friends 😁.
Like so many others, I never saw the exploding building footage until after 2020 (didn’t have a tv when it happened, didn’t spend much time around tvs...)
Thanks so much for your kind words, and also to Zahra’s for her thoughtful interview!
Thank you, Madhava. Something is definitely rotten.
Thank you for your research into this, Madhava. While I try to keep all possibilities in mind, right from the get go it looked to me like a Mossad operation. To other accounts suggesting the killing was faked and Charlie was still alive (due to lack of continuous blood flow and splatter) I thought the notion of a fatal shooting by a rooftop sniper might indeed be faked but that Mossad killed him deviously in some other way. Hence I appreciate the Stew Peters theory about the hidden microphone with a shaped charge and projectile that was detonated by the guy in the brown shirt, and which caused mostly massive internal bleeding. Of course they would want to whisk the body away quickly and avoid any kind of medical attention or post mortem examination. And given all the support Kirk's organization received from zionist donors, it's likely they also provided him with top notch Israeli security companies and bodyguards--how convenient for cleverly arranging to take him out after he started having doubts and backing away from his deal with the devil...
I wonder if he isnt dead...that see you in valhalla comment kash made is curious...possible reference to Goat Island in NZ witness protection...a Global Express left the local airport near the UVU campus and disabled adsb tracking....the background of both Kirk and Erika is weird as well....Kirks dad , lead architect on Trump tower...Erikas parents own/ed az tech a govt contractor...daddy headed up or created the isreali division of raytheon....sooo many aspects of this event smell pretty bad ...like surstromming bad...lol
I just read another analysis by ArnGrimR, "Kirk Assassination: Cut Down the Conspiracies
Single Shooter, From the Front https://arngrimr.substack.com/p/kirk-assassination-cut-down-the-conspiracies
Worth reading. Does a detailed analysis to figure out what was physically possible to rule out theories. Last summer, I did a very deep dive into the Trump shooting to figure out what was possible or not (was way ahead of most folks who fixated on "facts" that were not facts and didn't keep an open mind and dig into the primary material and try to sift the wheat from the chaff).
Note: I have NOT followed the Kirk shooting at all; just what I've seen in headlines and a bit on the Jimmy Dore Show. Instead, I've done a deep dive into the Vaxxed vs UnVaxxed "Henry Ford Study" and hope to post next week. I strongly recommend watching the Oct 13th premiere of the documentary "An Inconvenient Study" https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/
A garbage analysis. And completely archaic, based on his "facts" which we already know were outright fabrications by the FBI, completely untrue. And he focuses on the numerous obviously crackpot theories, rather than on the alternative rational theories, such the ones Martenson & RangeDayBro have presented. As well as Candace's much more substantiated and thorough description of the many details of the assassination, most of which the FBI just ignores. Lies of Omission.
Which facts upon which that analysis was based are 'outright fabrications'?
I used videos and the layout of the area as my main facts, nothing particular from the FBI itself.
Also, Martenson was mentioned, and shown to be close, but without properly explaining his choice for wound location, or why he did not allow for any variability, demanding that Tyler could not have made that 1 very specific shot, and that therefore there must have been a second shooter. Nah, that is stretching it way too far.
Start with the basics, and see from there what is and isn't possible or plausible.
There was an autopsy.
Who said there was a second shooter? You seem to be fixed on this fable about Tyler Robinson being the shooter, something he is totally denying, (you actually believe that FBI text exchange?), and his family is denying. Pretty much the entire fable we've been hearing about Tyler is BS. Including some of the purported video of him, clearly having been faked. While video they must have that would prove it they won't show. Instead they show video after the fact which has strange anomalies in it, like disappearing shadows & pedestrians. And other videos of him walking shadow analysis put at a much later time than claimed.
So far we have zero reputable evidence of Tyler being the shooter or that his grandpa's gun being the weapon used.
And Martenson is of course claiming Tyler video is faked and he didn't shoot anyone. The real shooter was in a higher location, likely with a smaller caliber weapon. Other witnesses, who the FBI won't talk to vehemently reported a man on another building roof all dressed in black, just before the shooting. And even ran to the site and reported that to the police.
Chris Martenson said there was a second shooter.
The idea that Tyler and the family is denying that he is the shooter, is something that came from Candace Owens, I believe, something stated without any proof/receipts. I reserve doubt until proof is presented for that rather important claim. Tyler Robinson had a pretrial hearing yesterday, with his new council, and their tactic was delay and avoid death penalty. No formal 'not guilty' plea was entered.
You believe Owens on her word, without evidence, and contrary to what Tyler and his defense team seem to be doing, yet you think I am fixed on a 'fable'?
I used 4 different videos of the shooting itself, and left all the other elements outside my analysis, for a reason.
All 4 videos, some saved the day Kirk was shot, after they were released within minutes/the hour, are congruent, which rules out tampering.
What I did was reconstruct the shooting itself, showing that the shot must have come from the front, either straight ahead or slightly to the right of Kirk, or within 30% from that centerline. Any other shot is impossible with the wound observed.
Tell me which part of that is wrong, and WHY.
I’m not quite sure how we have ruled out hoax-assassination - as in Charlie Kirk is alive and well in some sunny clime. In reality - there is very scarce evidence that a crime took place - just a lot of cheesy witness interviews and videos.
Where do you believe he is now if he is alive? And why would he be willing to be kept from the public eye while the world moves on as if he is dead? If he is being kept against his will, what would be the purpose?
I am sincerely curious about what you think.
The same place Epstein is at.
I have no idea where Mr. Kirk might be - but the world is a big place. Regarding Mr. Kirk's willingness - perhaps that is the intended endpoint of a farcical career. He has effectively served as a guided missile into the political landscape - setting the left and right at each other's throats - and now his work is done.
In any case, there is also a good case to be made that the Trump assassination attempt was also a hoax - the least of which is the miracle ear. Given that precedent - I truly don't understand the credulousness of the public regarding this "assassination".
To be more clear, I am wondering what you think would be the utility of keeping him alive but out of commission permanently. Whose purpose would that serve?
Honor amongst thieves - but who knows - criminals/mafiosos do have codes of ethics - just warped.
The purpose of keeping him alive is not dissuading further sleeper agents and intelligence assets.
I expect on recruitment, for reassurance and proof, they are taken to meet all the suicided and dead agents who are now retired and living happily after cosmetic surgery in a new country with their real wife ( not the one for the undercover project they were on.)
Then his wife is the greatest actress in history. Good lord. There were thousands of eyewitnesses to both shootings. And you are wrong about him “setting the left and right at each other’s throats"… that has been done since before he was alive. And most of that is directed at the throats of those on the right.
doesn't seem at all like a good actress to me.
for the same reasons you write about we have no reason to believe he is dead. same as Epstein. the producers of these episodes are thinking way ahead... the psy op maybe started years ago.
Can you be more specific? I think there are very good reasons why he is dead. He was, in some sense, driving a movement to bring light to interests which have had a hand in tragedies going back quite a while. Sadly, he indicated this to his inner circle before going public with it explicitly. Little did he know...
I cannot think of a good reason why he would be kept alive. His value to the deep state was in the number of minds over which he had influence over. He was an important asset that was about to become a huge liability.
I'm not saying I think he is alive. I am saying that I/we have no good reason to believe 'anything' about the official story, which includes that Charlie Kirk was who everyone thinks he was. Seems to me, like 9/11, this event was planned a long time before it happened. I agree with you, the way the story is conveyed to us it is very believable. Because he was starting to go against Israel, he was taken out. This is pretty obvious. So obvious it sends a message to everyone: you're dead if you go against Israel. You know the oft quoted saying of William Casey that Barbara Honneger shared: "We'll know out disinformation system is in place when everything the public believes is false." Well, there may be some truth there.... So yes, within the context of what we've been told it makes perfect sense he would be assassinated. But everything we've been told may be a construction of the overlords. Those overlords, maybe aligned with sinister ETs, have extraordinary powers way beyond what we typically imagine. Kirk could have been an alien creation, or some weird cloned entity, that was designed just for this purpose. I am not arguing or asserting that this is true. I am saying it is possible. Back to Epstein for a second. I do think he is alive and well. Not one bit of evidence that he was killed, or ever in that cell.
Charlie Kirk being dead is part of the official story. I think that there are pretty sound reasons why he is dead, and no good reason why someone would want him alive but out of public view. Can you offer a good reason why the overlords would lie about this too?
Sure there are good reasons to believe he is dead. The official story has some believable parts, like the official 9/11 story. That's what makes those stories believable. That's how psy ops work. But to me, in both cases, though they have believable parts, the official stories are false, and were designed a long time before they were loosed on the public. How much went into creating those characters I do not know, and neither do you. Is Erika Kirk an innocent God fearing Christian woman who organically met Charlie and fell in love? Or was she an off spring of a military industrial agents and groomed for this role? What do we really know about Charlie? Just what the media has informed us, and the media almost always lies, like the overlords. I have no reason to believe anything they put out. And Charlie is surely one of their inventions. So his death is suspect as well.
Why final thoughts? Hopefully you will continue to track this? My first thought is, why do events like this become so squirrely, with so many strange and unusual aspects: autopsies that don't happen, strange behavior by "bodyguards", incomplete "footage" immediately released and never followed up, reporting of what "we know so far" that is never further examined, investigations that don't ever seem to happen--dogs that don't bark. It's getting curiouser and curiouser. I'll look forward to checking out both Collapse Life and Apophenia Gold as well, thanks for the tips!
I think that I have adequately proven that it isn't a square. That's all we can ever do. It's diminishing returns at this point.
Maybe the family did not want an autopsy? Justice Scalia’s family didn’t want one performed, either, and his death was suspicious. Their religious views may have prohibited them.
honestly, I gotta wait till the temperature goes down and we have a clearer picture of the actual evidence. there are so many different narratives and theories out there that it is impossible to determine the signal from the noise.
and there is a lotta noise on this one.
remember: to a hammer everything looks like a nail…
No way that was an exploding microphone. You watch videos of the Israeli exploding cell phones, they were very energetic events with debris flying everywhere.
You can't cause a projectile to push forward without generating at least an equal and opposite momentum. In fact a larger momentum since the explosions are very inefficient at directing energy, much moreso than a rifle or pistol. Instead you see the microphone fly forward after the shot. It and his shirt & skin would have been shredded by such an explosion.
Martenson's analysis is still quite compatible with the theory of a much smaller caliber like a .223 fired from his right side, and explains what was originally thought to be blood spray to be his necklace driven by the force of the cavitation explosion in his neck. As well as the billowing of his T-shirt too many people have gotten fixated on.
I am curious about how you know with 100% certainty that a shaped charge couldn't have been under charlie's shirt near the mic clip.
There seems to be a discharge of energy. Some of that could have been preferentially directed left ward and posteriorly.
It's also possible that it was just an explosive charge with no projectile that blew out his Right chest. Looking at the grainy footage of his Left neck the "wound" may be something that was photoshopped in.
I don't know. How do you know that there was "No way"?
As I said, Martenson's hypothesis is reasonable but also has some problems. I am just pointing them out. Do you disagree with me that a projectile moving R to L, anterior to slightly posteriorly and upward would have incapacitated Kirk instantaneously too?
No doubt such a projectile could have done so, but that would have to have been a bullet from a gun of some sort. That's completely different from hypothesizing some far-fetched notion of a shaped charge placed on his shirt somehow, like he wouldn't notice that, and imagine somehow you could make that drive a projectile through his body without an obvious energetic flash & explosion on his chest, with shrapnel moving in the opposite direction. As well as obvious damage to his chest and shirt. Just not feasible. Why not just claim a pistol round from that direction? A million X more probable.
The resolution of the videos that we have is not all we could wish, and may be creating artifacts that are hard to interpret. I think Martenson did about as well as he could with the materials he had.
I thought same re lavolier microphone...beginning to really think the whole thing was fake and staged...not as though the public intellect bar is very high...lol
I was not well aware of Charlie Kirk before his death. But seeing it on X was a shock and has affected me. I am not a committed “Christian” though I was raised Methodist (half-heartedly). But I do like Candace Owens and I’m a classical liberal-minded human. They were great friends and she is a full on mama tiger in trying to get to the bottom of all the lies. I admire that. Scapegoats make me sad, as most of us have been scapegoated at least once in our lives. Truth tellers make me proud and defiant and happy. Thank you for writing this. The government lies so routinely, with such facility, and no qualms at all, that it makes people feel crazy. Charlie is dead. He was killed right in front of thousands of people there and all of us watching it happen on X. He deserves justice, even if you don’t agree with everything he says politically.
She wasn’t invited to the funeral. That doesn’t sound like she was a “great friend”. She keeps talking about her “receipts” (an obnoxious term used this way) but hasn’t shown any, that I’ve seen anyway. All of her information is from unnamed “sources”. I’m not sure she is that credible.
You don’t know if “she was invited” or not, do you? You don’t. She said she got many texts asking her if she was going. Why would she go put herself there amidst that den of snakes, hmmm? I wouldn’t. She DOES have receipts… that’s just a figurative expression, if you didn’t know. She is immensely credible, far more so than his so-called friends who are covering up this intelligence operation. You should watch BOTH of Dr. Chris Martenson’s recent videos on his Peak Prosperity website. He did a great job with the Butler assassination story too. Charlie was betrayed by a lot of people, most of all, those awful Zionist freaks who funded TPUSA. We shame them, but you can’t shame the shameless.
They were indeed in close touch.
How do you know she wasn't invited? And if not, how do you figure that wouldn't have meant she was her great friend. It could mean who ever is in charge of invitations, doesn't like her, maybe even his wife.
And a whole lot of her information is from named sources. And she claims to have the receipts to a lot of what she says, some of which we have seen, like the photo of him in the Dairy Queen. If people she says are telling her things that are untrue she could be sued, so she is covering her ass, but may have a deal to keep their names out of it, publicly.
So far her alternative story and timeline is self-consistent, whereas the FBI's story is a joke, and they ain't telling us anything. All these rumors about no autopsy floating around, including likely fake audio, total silence from the FBI. They could quash that in one line. They won't tell us anything but put out a long winded obviously fake text exchange, and just ignore any critiques of it.
Sorry dude, from what I've seen, kick the FBI out and put Candace in charge of the investigation, guaranteed 1000% improvement.
People typically don't get "invited" to funerals. They show up.
? You do not need to measure all points on a circumference to find out if a circle is a circle.
Just use a pin and string, or a pair of compasses.
Is that so?
The center of the circle is a dimensionless point. How do you know the pin is centered upon it? There's no way to know with certainty if the distance measured from this pin to end of the string is the same throughout the path it traces. String and every other material has a modulus of elasticity. How do you know that the tension you are applying was absolutely constant throughout?
How do you know that the compass hasn't changed the length it defines as you were using it? How do you know that it hasn't slightly expanded from the warmth of your hand?
What is at the dynamic end of the compass? Something with dimensions obviously.
In any case, in order to even see the circle the width of the line that defines it must be non-zero too. How can you tell if the width of the line remains constant throughout?
We are always left with some uncertainty around anything that has to be measured. No tool is perfect.
I realize the point you are trying to make, that truly knowing something is difficult. But you have stretched your example to the point where it violates common sense. One can measure a circle with a pin and string--or with a compass--closely enough that you can be certain it is a circle for normal, practical purposes. It is when you are trying to do something really tricky, like, say navigate a satellite to an asteroid, that you need to get into precision measurement and all that implies.
My point is very simple. It is possible to know with 100% certainty about what isn't. Knowing what is with 100% certainty is much harder. Science is, in fact, the never ending pursuit to define what is. It's never ending because there are limits to what we can measure or even apprehend.
I use this example as a way to diffuse the antimony between people who think they know what happened for sure and attack people who disagree.
It's a waste of time. For all practical purposes we just have to come to agreement about what didn't happen instead of arguing about what did from a place of certainty.
And, I never said anything about "practical purposes". Of course we use things that are circular all the time. "Circle" however is a purely abstract concept when taken in it's purest sense.
Of course you are technically right. But, I raised the matter of "practical purposes" because we live in the world as it is and often have to make decisions about what to do. In the case of the murder of Charlie Kirk, it would be useful to know if the government has been lying to us, and to have some idea of what really happened. Getting into whether or not we can know the truth about anything is not helpful in this instance.
I agree with you partially. I think we can know the truth about what did not happen, but knowing the truth about what did happen is impossible. That was my point behind the circle and square. In other words, let's establish that we cannot know what happened with certainty and and instead come together around what DIDN'T happen.
Please do not be silly. People have been building structures on this basis for thousands of years. A Turkish friend of mine told me that after their mosque collapsed in an earthquake in their village the men of the village rebuilt the dome just by using a long rod. They stood in the centre of the building and swung the rod up and around to describe the dome's internal hemisphere. They did not need to do any complex equations, and they got a new dome and new building that way.
Stonehenge was built in the early neolithic by the same principle. Describing circles is simpler than making rectangles. No measuring is necessary, either of length or angle to get a perfect geometry.
Is the figure in the essay a circle or not? In other words, either it is or it isn't. Or don't you agree with that either?
Charlie is still alive.
So very many questions could be answered but the silence is now deafening. After the shock and awe, substantive reports have vanished.
The defensive posture of Israel is very suspicious. The rapidly quick clearance of the roommate is bizarre. The removal of cameras so quickly. The lack of autopsy. The refusal to release all available video footage in unedited form. The weird text exchange. The ballistic questions and trajectory.
I don't want to believe the worst but it's not looking good.
This is the Pattern I see: The Owners of the World laughing and mocking the inhabitants.
Charlie lives and hopefully so do your brain cells.
You know this how, exactly?
The Kirk Incident: The Pearl Harbor for an AI-driven World War
https://emanuelprez.substack.com/p/the-kirk-incident-the-pearl-harbor
"Charlie Kirk was a central figure in promoting Trump’s propaganda through the Turning Point campaign aimed indoctrinating youth. His job was to tell impressionable youth that their futures, and their entire society, has been destroyed, not by billionaires and multinational banks, but rather by immigrants, “radical leftists,” and transgender activists.
He was purposely misleading citizens as part of an act of war on the citizens funded by, and for the benefit of, a tiny handful of multi-billionaire families. He was a major player in a criminal conspiracy involving multiple felony offenses."
"The narrative surrounding the shooting (“assassination” is the hyped-up term that the commercial media has adopted almost without exception) of Charlie Kirk started to fall apart about as soon as it was introduced in the news and circulated through social media.
As numerous articles have already detailed the inconsistencies (see Conspiracy Sarah’s “Take 3”) from the way Kirk fell, to the blood or lack of it, to the appearance of figures in the images that seem to be computer generated, to all too convenient “assassin” who is from a Trump supporter family, but was seduced into leftist thinking by what he read on Reddit, and has a trans lover to boot, I will not present an autopsy here."