Preamble

So I watched this video on X at the request of u/propertyofUniverse after looking at this post on GAW. I did a brief analysis in comments, but I wanted to expand on it. This is as emotion free as I can make it too, and for those commenting on it, I'd expect the same from you if you're serious about the research side of this.

Now I will say I'm undecided as to what's happened, why it happened, if he is alive or dead, all of it. Full disclosure - I never did follow Charlie or TPUSA. they became a thing after I left the USA, and didn't influence me at all.

I also have no data here from the funeral event. And that is by design. Any supposition from that wrt his wife's behavior starts to lean into begging the question and personal incredulity fallacies to me very quickly. I speak from experience that all people grieve in different ways and act in ways contrary to the normal supposition on how they should behave in moments of grief, and as such making claims based on a grieving woman's behavior feels like a weak argument.

Purpose of the Post

Since his "death" (in quotes as I'm now back on the fence about the whole subject), I've written once to highlight how the death has been catalytic to flipping the targets for cancel culture, and at creating a bit of a platform for Christian nationalism, and highlighting them as pretty good things. I still think they are good things too, people advocating murder as a tool for discourse and change deserve losing from the private sector big time.

This said, it is worth digging into the event as well, if for no other reason than to hold the players on all sides to account.

Is the Event other than what has been told to us?

First, watch the video I linked at the start of this post. Yes yes it's 20 min long, but the first half is full of short bursts of data easily digested. I will give a bit of a summary of it here as well, but best to have context.

Watched it? Okay so as much as I'm loathe to say it, I'll admit there is some kind of fuckery afoot. What that fuckery is? No clue tbh. That's for y'all to come to a concensus on. I'm just highlighting what I've seen.

Tyler the Patsy

The shooter is looking more like a patsy day by day. I couldn't read the text wall in the video but I've read some of his comments from news articles and yeah the oddities don't really make sense. The whole exchange between him and his gay lover seem fabricated although I can't put my finger on precisely why. It just doesn't read through like something people would write.

The rifle videos near the start are compelling to say he didn't do it too, as there's no way for it to make sense. That part I'm 100% aligned to. There is zero chance someone can disassemble the rifle fast enough outside Hollywood.

"It's a Squib!"

As for the "it's a squib" argument, the best I've got is maybe for this. Some of the footage they show is quite compelling in that direction, like the artifact like bullet hole video, or the way the shirt is moving with no wound or armor in place.

The "the blood is coming from his shirt" clip is slightly less compelling because it is a little head fucky and there is something of a self fulfilling prophecy vibe to it. Like, "I want to see it that way so that's what it must be" kind of job. It's not enough on its own by any stretch.

The "it's coagulated blood" vid though, that's a lot weaker. The video used as proof ain't good quality to begin with tbh, and video is one thing I do know a little about, unlike ballistic and forensic knowledge of gunshot wounds. zooming on a low res moving image creates a terrible artifact effect which can make liquids look in part solid, like they are coagulated. I'll admit if it was an arterial spray that's not the image I'd expect, but the "it's coming from his shirt and not him" vids were slightly more convincing conceptually.

Where's the blood??

Now the post shooting carry and lack of blood at the crime scene? That's a little more convincing with me, but I'll Devil's advocate the topic. First, I can't explain the "there's no blood" at the shooting site, but the carrying around one? There are elements that can be devils advocated away.

Could have had gauze on the wound being held in place to staunch the bleeding, which is what I'd do before moving a body if I were them. The head moving means very little to me as it's not like Charlie is on a stretcher. He's being manhandled to a truck (odd tbh but 🤷 maybe that's part of the security contract, and better than waiting 10 min for an ambulance), and as such I'd expect the head to move around as he's being put into it, especially if Charlie was unconscious at that point.

That said, the way it does seem to be run like an action scene from a film, and the way there's no blood drops and no obvious dressings of any wound visible... Well it is suspicious at least.

Why no 4k/HD vids??

My biggest problems with everything I've seen so far are the way the videos are so weak. The resolution of most cameras of any decent make circa 2020 or after (one plus, iPhone, pixel, Samsung etc) is much better than the vids shown in the clip compilation or the stuff I've seen online in other posts.

My phone was able to capture stills of a comet in the night in the Indian ocean, and vids of the sea at sunset, that we're crisper than the stuff being aired. Did no one at the front of the venue have a decent quality phone? We're all the cameras at the venue made in the early 2000s or something? Theres only one that does get anything remotely close to HD red and that's the "moving shirt" vids. Even then, it doesn't confirm anything.

Is he Alive? Is he Dead?

These are the questions many want to know the answer to. And let's be honest, we may never find out. If he faked his own death, we may never see him again unless we go to valhalla in gove County, kansas and look for him.

He's likely in witness protection if he is alive, so expect to find nobody. If he's dead, we'll nothing really changed from our current status quo. In the end, the situation is a non starter. The question, though intriguing, is by and large meaningless and dangerous to find out. If we find him alive, it will mean massive harm done to the entire movement that has kicked off. The media will have a field day. The memorial as a "turning point" for the return of America to God's own hands and to sensibility will fall on its ass, as will trump's presidency.

Imagine if Kirk comes out saying "gotcha suckers" tomorrow - people would be demoralised on the right, and the left would go ballistic at the administration. And worse of all, trump would be complicit by leaning into giving Kirk honors the way he did. If he is dead, again, nothing changes really.

If he is Dead, Who Killed him?

This is a better line of questioning. I'm leaning towards ruling out the patsy in favour of mossad crabs, but again without more evidence of wtf happened it's impossible to really know. If he is alive, who executed the plan is an interesting question set, but things like the "static bullet hole" video artefact could be a obfuscation of the means of murder rather than hiding someone from further harm.

The who is again going to require transparency from the investigation which we can already see isn't happening. We can dig and dig, but unless new data comes out, the best we have is a second jfk style piece of madness with shooters potentially all over the place.

If he's dead, how did he actually die?

I've seen some arguments of a bomb in his wireless microphone killing him which are slightly compelling. The shrapnel from a body armor deflection also is somewhat compelling too, although that presumes body armor was worn which isn't proven. That said, I'd expect Kirk to wear it going into enemy territory the way he did. Alternatively it was a long range pro with a frangible bullet round that took him out, and the autopsy is a smokescreen to cover up that the ordinance was outside of the patsy's capability to purchase. Again, without more data, everything is conjecture.

So what are the actually plausible theories?

Here are the ones I know about.

1. Current shooter is a patsy, and there was another shooter.
2. His mic was detonated.
3. He faked his own death.
4. The status quo is true or some derivative of it

1 & 3 are to me are still more viable than number 2, as an explosion has a lot of concussive force to deal with, even if it is directed. I rule out 2 as well as I'd expect scorching on the shirt that I've not seen in any shots.

Here's why the others to me are more viable, and some of it is to do with the fallout.

In the case of 3:

• body armor not there
• was never actually shot for real and used a squib

the resulting events were designed by him in tandem with the admin to further the cause of the white hats and trap the crabs and the cabal, while getting lefties to openly declare their intents. Digging too far into this will be counter productive however.

in the case of 1:

• body armor was worn under the t-shirt and reduced the impact velocity of the bullet, but it rebounded and was lodged in the victim.
• in the case of 1, any number of alternatives exist depending on where the wound is. This in its own right is something we don't know beyond autopsy reports and a dodgy video. So again, data is lacking.

And option 4?

• in the case of 4, it's how we've been told, as unlikely as it seems to be. So Tyler did it, the odd text is real, he's a master rifle disassemble who somehow hid parts on his person and then dumped it reassembled in seconds in the woods. The more I think on it, the less it feels real, so I'll argue 1 or 3 is most likely.

So what do you think then is the real reason, 1 or 3?

Me? No clue, and I'm hedging my bets. There are reasons I'm on the fence in this scenario. I'm waiting for the end of the film to work out what happened, who live and who died, and if Charlie will be walking out with either MJ or Junior one day to raucous applause from trump. Or if all of them are actually dead and we need to just accept it as reality.

Conclusion

The one thing I do think at the end of the day, as sad as it is, and as nasty as this sounds, Kirk's death has made him a martyr and all that that entails.

• His death has done even more to push people away from the left than most of his debating and rhetoric.
• It has done more to damage the left than him being alive to fight for the cause.
• It has done more to raise the point of Christianity being under attack than his argumentation did.

I'm not glad he is dead (assuming he is) and I hate that the nation had to realise the level of crazy via such tragedy, but at least they have realised it now. I don't believe that Martyrdom should have been the catalyst, but obviously it has worked towards the end goals of the movement. I just hope and pray no more are martyred for the cause.

By what I think happened isn't really relevant as I tend to look hollisitically at all the data I get. What do you think and why logically did it make sense to you?