Wow. It's amazing how difficult it is to distinguish between a "reasonable opinion" and cognitive dissonance. I believe it was as fake as "Brigitte" Macron's tits but every single new narrative seems to offer totally opposing proofs and conclusions nowadays. I think I'm going to lie down awhile 🥴
So you do not consider Kirk might still be alive — gone to ‘’Valhalla’’ for a brand new identity? Curious as to why and how deeply you have looked into the ‘event’ itself.
Well that’s fine I am not married to a narrow view —- I was just asking if you had actually contemplated it. I obviously don’t know for sure however — just from what I have read, looked at etc I don’t think Kirk was killed at that event ( by whoever allegedly shot him) - for me - no new magic bullet ( JFK like) , no magic miracle intervention that also stopped the bullet passing through and potentially hitting others , no proper explanation for the behaviour of his closest aide , lack of blood on the way to the SUV , no autopsy— Mrs Kirk’s background and ‘Bizarre’ reaction , the history of MK ultra .. etc etc so on and so forth …… I think it’s most likely he has indeed gone to Valhalla just as Patel told us ( they always tell us ) and is assuming a new identity —- but of course he might have been sold that option but then ‘disposed of’ as there are no rules that govern ‘the powers that should not be’. Anyway interesting……. Best wishes.
Look no further then the security team one with the tip of the hat and another with the arm signal for clear to shoot. His own people did this and they had ties to the blue stars.
Yes, I actually now think it probably was Tyler Robinson who killed Kirk, although I haven't ruled out Ackman or Mossad. What information are you referring to?
Whether she is retard or not, CO has presented evidence that TPUSA is just blatantly lying.
I havent heard of any evidence that any of her (big) claims about this assassination were wrong.
Nobody disputes that Egyptian planes have followed the Kirks for years and were also around at the time of the assassination. It has even been confirmed by others.
Also the eyewitness report of EK and other TPUSA senior officials in military facility on that morning has not been falsified.
So I would focus on the credibility of the allegations and the evidence, instead of fixating on who reported them.
Tyler Robinson seems to have had some level of involvement but he does look like a patsy.
The information i am referring is based on the revelations by the likes of Candace Owens and Ian Caroll: Egyptian planes following the Kirks for years, the lies from Charlie’s security (that they missed the killer because they werent allowed to use drones while they literally showed drone footage to Charlie the same morning), the many proven lies from TPUSA, the extremely shady role of Erika and eye witness testimonies about her being in a military facility with other TPUSA personel just a few hours before Charlie was assassinated, how and where the FBI found the weapon and the trained police dogs couldnt, how experts all agree that the alleged weapon would have decapitated Charlie.
I’m not suggesting that there is a solid theory now, but both the lone shooter and Ackman theory do not really explain the above imho.
To be honest, I think Candace Owens and Ian Carroll are retards and I don't really take anything they say seriously.
The fact that experts were saying the 30-06 should have decapitated Charlie seemed like a strong point initially, but I watched this video from experts saying that's not true. I thought they made a lot of good points, like how MLK was shot with a 30-06 and there was no exit wound and that deer are commonly shot with 30-06 and there is no exit wound.
Although the lack of blood is more difficult to account for. A few months ago I was stood over for money by a stranger and when I refused the guy started swinging a tyre iron at my car breaking the front side window and when I tried to stop him from doing more damage he landing a hard hit to the inside of my wrist. This broke the skin and it immediately started bleeding. Anyway long story short this scared the guy away, I took myself off to hospital where my wrist was cleaned and stitched. Fortunately, it had narrowly missed my artery and I only needed 4 or 5 stitches. However this one small wound produced an enormous amount of blood which got everywhere; there was blood on the road next to my car, soaking through the sleeve of my jacket, on my trousers, all over the driver and passenger seats, a trail of blood from the car park to the ER and 1000s of pieces of broken window glass on the floor of the car were covered in blood. Back to Charlie Kirk. Putting aside the exit wound question, where is the blood? At a minimum there should have been some blood evident on his clothing, a lot of blood inside the vehicle he was taken away in plus some visible blood drops along the path between the point of contact and the vehicle. Why wasn't there any blood in these places? Suspicious.
Thank you for this piece. As with JFK, it matters who killed Kirk, and it is significant, and we must take note, if the Public are handed a pile of preposterous nonsense and ordered to be satisfied with it.
A couple of thoughts. First, I have been lately ploughing through books by Victor Ostrovsky, Gordon Thomas & Martin Dillon, David Martin, Ari Ben-Menashe, and Ronen Bergman, and find the conclusion entirely supported that literally no assassination is too audacious for a country so ready to convince itself that its very existence is at stake.
Secondly, as far as replacement goes, didn't Ben Shapiro rush to announce that he would pick up Charlie Kirk's "blood-stained microphone"? If that appears in retrospect miscalculated, that doesn't disqualify it as having been the "plan." (Lots of intel strategies are cack-handed.)
Finally, the complexity of the field of players looks like a state-level kidon operation: the distraction screamer George Zinn (a sayan?) The questioner at the trigger-moment who asked a signal "trans"-related question (to slot neatly into the patsy's silly trans-related Legend) was reportedly Jewish (another sayan?) Kirk's woeful security team (apparently giving weird hand/arm signals in the moment before the shot and weirdly unsurprised at the moment of death) was reportedly Israeli-based. Kirk's lieutenant Andrew Kolvet has been busy peddling Magic Bullet, nothing-to-see-here,-move-along,-folks instructions (professional sniper testimony about the damage that such a monster bullet would do notwithstanding). And the frantic way Bibi Netanyahu leapt on the case to deny that Israel had anything to do with it was entirely counterproductive.
Wow. It's amazing how difficult it is to distinguish between a "reasonable opinion" and cognitive dissonance. I believe it was as fake as "Brigitte" Macron's tits but every single new narrative seems to offer totally opposing proofs and conclusions nowadays. I think I'm going to lie down awhile 🥴
So you do not consider Kirk might still be alive — gone to ‘’Valhalla’’ for a brand new identity? Curious as to why and how deeply you have looked into the ‘event’ itself.
No, I do not consider that Kirk might still be alive. I'd say I've looked into the event relatively deeply.
Well that’s fine I am not married to a narrow view —- I was just asking if you had actually contemplated it. I obviously don’t know for sure however — just from what I have read, looked at etc I don’t think Kirk was killed at that event ( by whoever allegedly shot him) - for me - no new magic bullet ( JFK like) , no magic miracle intervention that also stopped the bullet passing through and potentially hitting others , no proper explanation for the behaviour of his closest aide , lack of blood on the way to the SUV , no autopsy— Mrs Kirk’s background and ‘Bizarre’ reaction , the history of MK ultra .. etc etc so on and so forth …… I think it’s most likely he has indeed gone to Valhalla just as Patel told us ( they always tell us ) and is assuming a new identity —- but of course he might have been sold that option but then ‘disposed of’ as there are no rules that govern ‘the powers that should not be’. Anyway interesting……. Best wishes.
Look no further then the security team one with the tip of the hat and another with the arm signal for clear to shoot. His own people did this and they had ties to the blue stars.
ISRAEL.
Any updates on your views based on the vast amount of information since you wrote this?
Yes, I actually now think it probably was Tyler Robinson who killed Kirk, although I haven't ruled out Ackman or Mossad. What information are you referring to?
I will look at the link with an open mind.
I believe in arguments - not labels.
Whether she is retard or not, CO has presented evidence that TPUSA is just blatantly lying.
I havent heard of any evidence that any of her (big) claims about this assassination were wrong.
Nobody disputes that Egyptian planes have followed the Kirks for years and were also around at the time of the assassination. It has even been confirmed by others.
Also the eyewitness report of EK and other TPUSA senior officials in military facility on that morning has not been falsified.
So I would focus on the credibility of the allegations and the evidence, instead of fixating on who reported them.
Tyler Robinson seems to have had some level of involvement but he does look like a patsy.
The information i am referring is based on the revelations by the likes of Candace Owens and Ian Caroll: Egyptian planes following the Kirks for years, the lies from Charlie’s security (that they missed the killer because they werent allowed to use drones while they literally showed drone footage to Charlie the same morning), the many proven lies from TPUSA, the extremely shady role of Erika and eye witness testimonies about her being in a military facility with other TPUSA personel just a few hours before Charlie was assassinated, how and where the FBI found the weapon and the trained police dogs couldnt, how experts all agree that the alleged weapon would have decapitated Charlie.
I’m not suggesting that there is a solid theory now, but both the lone shooter and Ackman theory do not really explain the above imho.
To be honest, I think Candace Owens and Ian Carroll are retards and I don't really take anything they say seriously.
The fact that experts were saying the 30-06 should have decapitated Charlie seemed like a strong point initially, but I watched this video from experts saying that's not true. I thought they made a lot of good points, like how MLK was shot with a 30-06 and there was no exit wound and that deer are commonly shot with 30-06 and there is no exit wound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDqtUvI_hY
Although the lack of blood is more difficult to account for. A few months ago I was stood over for money by a stranger and when I refused the guy started swinging a tyre iron at my car breaking the front side window and when I tried to stop him from doing more damage he landing a hard hit to the inside of my wrist. This broke the skin and it immediately started bleeding. Anyway long story short this scared the guy away, I took myself off to hospital where my wrist was cleaned and stitched. Fortunately, it had narrowly missed my artery and I only needed 4 or 5 stitches. However this one small wound produced an enormous amount of blood which got everywhere; there was blood on the road next to my car, soaking through the sleeve of my jacket, on my trousers, all over the driver and passenger seats, a trail of blood from the car park to the ER and 1000s of pieces of broken window glass on the floor of the car were covered in blood. Back to Charlie Kirk. Putting aside the exit wound question, where is the blood? At a minimum there should have been some blood evident on his clothing, a lot of blood inside the vehicle he was taken away in plus some visible blood drops along the path between the point of contact and the vehicle. Why wasn't there any blood in these places? Suspicious.
That’s not an argument against their evidential claims, as you know. Such makes you sound stupid.
Thank you for this piece. As with JFK, it matters who killed Kirk, and it is significant, and we must take note, if the Public are handed a pile of preposterous nonsense and ordered to be satisfied with it.
A couple of thoughts. First, I have been lately ploughing through books by Victor Ostrovsky, Gordon Thomas & Martin Dillon, David Martin, Ari Ben-Menashe, and Ronen Bergman, and find the conclusion entirely supported that literally no assassination is too audacious for a country so ready to convince itself that its very existence is at stake.
Secondly, as far as replacement goes, didn't Ben Shapiro rush to announce that he would pick up Charlie Kirk's "blood-stained microphone"? If that appears in retrospect miscalculated, that doesn't disqualify it as having been the "plan." (Lots of intel strategies are cack-handed.)
Finally, the complexity of the field of players looks like a state-level kidon operation: the distraction screamer George Zinn (a sayan?) The questioner at the trigger-moment who asked a signal "trans"-related question (to slot neatly into the patsy's silly trans-related Legend) was reportedly Jewish (another sayan?) Kirk's woeful security team (apparently giving weird hand/arm signals in the moment before the shot and weirdly unsurprised at the moment of death) was reportedly Israeli-based. Kirk's lieutenant Andrew Kolvet has been busy peddling Magic Bullet, nothing-to-see-here,-move-along,-folks instructions (professional sniper testimony about the damage that such a monster bullet would do notwithstanding). And the frantic way Bibi Netanyahu leapt on the case to deny that Israel had anything to do with it was entirely counterproductive.