I could be wrong, but I have a feeling Owens might have an important part in this Show. I believe she might play the role of the crazy conspiracy theorist that keeps getting proved right.
Yes something is happening here.
"The shot heard around the world" came to be called that because it was (essentially) the opening shot of World War I.
What direction would this whole saga need to go in for this to be our own "shot heard around the world" moment in time?
Yep. John is confusing the assassination of the Arch Duke with the Battle of Concord and Lexington.
It was call that because it signified the start of the American Revolution, which was, and has been, heard around "the world" - aka had worldwide impact.
I guess we could do a dig on this. I'm inclined to think that the shot heard around the world first came in with Lexington/Concord, and was then re-applied (repurposed) to the assassination of the Duke. In this case, both would be correct, and a contextual framing would be important.
it was more than one shot, and it was not a premeditated assassination
Way too literal, and not a relevant point.
Language and culture do not work that way.
"The shot heard around the world" came to be called that because...
Looks like the expression first was coined by Emerson in 1837. So, in fact, the reason for the expression wasn't the opening of WW1 (Archduke assassination), but nonetheless, was certainly used (revived/repurposed) for that, and in that sense, I think you're question is relevant: "What direction would this whole saga need to go in for this to be our own "shot heard around the world" moment in time?"
FWIW, I think the way Q used it (4 drops? Early 2018) is/will be more relevant than the Kirk Assassination - the global impact of the opening of the Q operation / Trump operation will have much greater impact than the Kirk Assassination ever will (imo).
I should mention, also that I think the "Israel did this" thrust of Owens et al is more noise than signal. It's a powerful narrative (for some sectors) and Owens loves tapping in to those (and certain sectors love her for tapping into those). I prefer the Flynn approach, which is more "Hey! We do not know, but there are too many unanswered questions. This needs to be addressed, because it affects the People/Govt relationship."
That said, its good for impartial folks to dig and research, and dig for facts and answers and ask questions. But if one latches on to a conclusion preemptively, then impartiality tends to suffer.
That said, it's good for impartial folks to dig and research, and dig for facts and answers and ask questions. But if one latches on to a conclusion preemptively, then impartiality tends to suffer.
I've spent about 27–30 hours of digging in to all the theories on where the gunman was. How many gunman. Where did the shot come from… Etc. etc.
I stayed largely silent on this topic for the last three weeks and I've put in roughly one – four hours daily into careful research.
All that research points definitively at the Mike being the culprit. Nothing else explains the movement of his shirt. I don't even know how many videos I've watched in slow motion of all kinds of bullets hitting ballistics manikins with shirts on to try to duplicate the look. Nothing at all duplicates the movement/look of his shirt. Not even a 50 caliber at close range in any of the videos I've seen made the shirt move even a fraction as much as his moved.
Couple that with the fact that three of his bodyguards immediately crowded around him and removed something. It's indisputable given the high-quality videos that I've seen that they did not take some thing off/from him and hand it off to another guy who slipped it in his pocket.
What was that? The exploded mic?
It certainly was not nothing.
Plus I found a high quality, slow motion, computerized vector-analysis on all the points of his shirt which showed that the blast underneath the shirt propagated from Charlie's right to his left, again pointing to the mic.
FWIW, I think the way Q used it (4 drops? Early 2018) is/will be more relevant than the Kirk Assassination - the global impact of the opening of the Q operation / Trump operation will have much greater impact than the Kirk Assassination ever will (imo).
FI, I think you are correct only if nothing more comes of his assassination.
However, if it comes out when his autopsy is released that it was the mic that did it, and thus positioning Israel as the de facto culprit, all bets are off.
The evangelicals, given their love for him, will immediately see the synagogue of Satan for who they really are. They will unite with the left on this particular issue, thus giving Trump the political capital with Americans to do whatever the hell he wants to [them]. That would make Kirk's "shot heard around the world" a pivotal moment in time.
Unless you are referring to something specific, re: Charlie, rather than the assassination, then would it not be more correctly labeled "The Establishment's (dishonest) narrative"?
Asking for a fren...
Addendum: Not going to watch 60 minutes of Owen's to find out exactly what those cracks are. But also, if its "The Official (dishonest) Narrative", it looks like there have been not just a few cracks from the get-go.
Woke up for a glass of water and saw your comment so I'll keep it short.
The (dishonest) TPUSA narrative is identical to the Official (dishonest) narrative: "Lone gunman."
"30-06 at 140 yards."
"MaN oF sTeEl" - No exit wound.
Nothing to see here involving Israel.
The cracks in the story have been there from the beginning.
"The official narrative" itself cracking, is wholly different.
Thanks for stopping by FI... I always look forward to your posts because you are thinking man.
And the fact that Erika is readily able to speak and didn't take off to avoid what she knew was coming. She was fully aware of what was going on. Not that some of the stuff that was told about her in the past few weeks was true or not, but regardless, as said, follow the wives.. lest we forget.
Then again, it's a movie. Partially inprov to an extent. The details don't matter as much as the overall strategy moving forward.
"The official narrative" itself cracking, is wholly different. Interesting take fren.I haven't thought about it like that. Narrative vs Official narrative.Thx John.
There were cracks in the story of JFK's assassination basically from the get-go… But the "official narrative" never did crumble to the ground. There was not a meaningful resolution.
Because this shot heard around the world must, by definition, trigger some larger event/happening,
I've been waiting to see the cracks form in the monolith that is the official narrative on its way to complete failure.
Sorry, I have not felt good about Candace in recent times. Before Charlie died, she was already disturbing me. There is a great darkness over her, which got 100 times worse since Charlie died, and I'm not sure what that is about. She is not in Christ right now, that is for sure. She's under some kind of deception. I don't understand what this is all about, but she is not the revealer of truth.
I wont watch her, quit a while back. IMO, just like AJ, she keeps "wandering off the path" trying to prove everything she says ends up twisting up the truths a bit just to fit right for her. Do I think she is a bad actor? Actually no, just as I said, wanders when called out to confirm.
No, You perceive her wandering of what you think is the path. Yet, everyone has their own path, larded with doubt, insecurity, but also faith and security.
Just because we have a view, does not mean we know for a fact what the next step will be.
Looking into the future is like looking into the mist. Looking back, yes, we can all see. And we assume that the future has the same patterns as we have seen in the live and lives behind us.
Are there areas to be critical? I think there are, logically.
But if you are going with the why question, unwittingly you are asking who.
Consider this: the world is filled to the brim with enemies. When your public influence is 10, you are nothing of import to the world powers. But as soon as your reach increases (and this was perfectly visible during Covid on all kinds of media platforms) you become important. Someone of something will attach to you, as a pilot fish to a shark, or if your use it limited, your operation will be put on ice.
"Where there is a body, the vultures will gather". But is need not be that vultures did the killing. Those who try to find out who did the killing, might mistake the killer for a vulture. This is why, her emphasis is on getting the right person or persons.
Such a journey is always beset with rabbit holes. And from what I gather so far, it seems to me the signs of a typical black ops are in place. Perhaps even a ploy within a ploy within a ploy.
It simply means, one party wants something, other parties watching want something else, but are attracted to the same event. It may even be, that within the halls of the spooks, there are groups with opposing interests, or even (partially) aligned interests.
As to her point on Trump not getting involved, that seems like a no brainer. Potus cannot get involved in everything. There a re bigger fish to fry. (optics and objectives. study Q posts on these matters).
But as soon as an event happens with a political dimension, sure, there is the real prospect of it being used for obvious benefit.
But one thing seems clear: a lot of effort has gone into obfuscating the trail. And that, in and of itself, is a tell tale of a carefully planned operation.
Thanks for the book but, I just can NOT watch her just like I can not watch AJ, sometimes I see the spark of "all about Candice or all about AJ" and that feels like a huge let down. Again, I do not think of her as a Bad Actor, just a human that gets sucked into her own hyperbole at times. I am fine with the updates from others on it all. I just trust my instincts with this stuff, like I do with all info absorbed, no hate or finger-point blaming though.
My guess is Illinois had something to do with this, or at least is a part of the whole thing. TPUSA was founded in Illinois (I believe?) and ADL was also founded in Illinois due to the Leo Frank incident so I guess ADL got to Charlie Kirk and Bill Montgomery early on and now President Trump is targeting Chicago and Illinois (Brandon Johnson and JB Pritzker <--- also an Ukrainian jew).
Bruce Rauner, the former Illinois governor before Pritzker, was a huge donor to TPUSA.
Even Barry Soetoro, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuels (another jew) are from Chicago (I know Soetoro isn't but I'm going with what "factcheckers" are saying).
Yup several of my liberal friends are proud of that cuz they felt like they're intertwined into history, Chicago being part of history since Soetoro is our first black president, just like how many people from Chicago are proud that the current Pope is the first American Pope, hailing from Chicago.
My question is if people are making her life hell and are trying to bankrupt her why not release their names and proof. Why say trusted friends will release it if something happens to her? I'm on the fence here and that's something I just can't understand.
She is aware there is more to this and may not be totally correct all the time but she can keep the conversation going with her questions and challanges into Charlie's death and hopefully the truth will come out.
I’ve found that people with strong personal principles who go deep research on specific topics tend to uncover inconvenient truths - and fearlessly tell others. Given enough time, this type of person is bound to rub virtually everyone the wrong way.
People with principles like this who come to mind are: Ron Paul (and Rand), Massey, Kirk, and many more. I’m not saying they are always 100% correct or even on the side of righteousness, just principled.
I could be wrong, but I have a feeling Owens might have an important part in this Show. I believe she might play the role of the crazy conspiracy theorist that keeps getting proved right.
Yes something is happening here.
"The shot heard around the world" came to be called that because it was (essentially) the opening shot of World War I.
What direction would this whole saga need to go in for this to be our own "shot heard around the world" moment in time?
The shot heard round the world refers to Concord/Lexington, not WW1.
Yep. John is confusing the assassination of the Arch Duke with the Battle of Concord and Lexington.
It was call that because it signified the start of the American Revolution, which was, and has been, heard around "the world" - aka had worldwide impact.
https://files.catbox.moe/nnllgp.jpeg
Q said "WW" (World Wide) many times.
I take his "shot heard around the world" to be referring to the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand.
In the American revolutionary war context, it was more than one shot, and it was not a premeditated assassination.
Charlie Kirk's assassination caused gatherings of support around the world, (WW) particularly in European countries.
I guess we could do a dig on this. I'm inclined to think that the shot heard around the world first came in with Lexington/Concord, and was then re-applied (repurposed) to the assassination of the Duke. In this case, both would be correct, and a contextual framing would be important.
Way too literal, and not a relevant point.
Language and culture do not work that way.
Looks like the expression first was coined by Emerson in 1837. So, in fact, the reason for the expression wasn't the opening of WW1 (Archduke assassination), but nonetheless, was certainly used (revived/repurposed) for that, and in that sense, I think you're question is relevant: "What direction would this whole saga need to go in for this to be our own "shot heard around the world" moment in time?"
FWIW, I think the way Q used it (4 drops? Early 2018) is/will be more relevant than the Kirk Assassination - the global impact of the opening of the Q operation / Trump operation will have much greater impact than the Kirk Assassination ever will (imo).
I should mention, also that I think the "Israel did this" thrust of Owens et al is more noise than signal. It's a powerful narrative (for some sectors) and Owens loves tapping in to those (and certain sectors love her for tapping into those). I prefer the Flynn approach, which is more "Hey! We do not know, but there are too many unanswered questions. This needs to be addressed, because it affects the People/Govt relationship."
That said, its good for impartial folks to dig and research, and dig for facts and answers and ask questions. But if one latches on to a conclusion preemptively, then impartiality tends to suffer.
I've spent about 27–30 hours of digging in to all the theories on where the gunman was. How many gunman. Where did the shot come from… Etc. etc.
I stayed largely silent on this topic for the last three weeks and I've put in roughly one – four hours daily into careful research.
All that research points definitively at the Mike being the culprit. Nothing else explains the movement of his shirt. I don't even know how many videos I've watched in slow motion of all kinds of bullets hitting ballistics manikins with shirts on to try to duplicate the look. Nothing at all duplicates the movement/look of his shirt. Not even a 50 caliber at close range in any of the videos I've seen made the shirt move even a fraction as much as his moved.
Couple that with the fact that three of his bodyguards immediately crowded around him and removed something. It's indisputable given the high-quality videos that I've seen that they did not take some thing off/from him and hand it off to another guy who slipped it in his pocket.
What was that? The exploded mic?
It certainly was not nothing.
Plus I found a high quality, slow motion, computerized vector-analysis on all the points of his shirt which showed that the blast underneath the shirt propagated from Charlie's right to his left, again pointing to the mic.
FI, I think you are correct only if nothing more comes of his assassination.
However, if it comes out when his autopsy is released that it was the mic that did it, and thus positioning Israel as the de facto culprit, all bets are off.
The evangelicals, given their love for him, will immediately see the synagogue of Satan for who they really are. They will unite with the left on this particular issue, thus giving Trump the political capital with Americans to do whatever the hell he wants to [them].
That would make Kirk's "shot heard around the world" a pivotal moment in time.
Thought that was Trump ?
They both landed exactly at [14] on the Q Clock.
lol someone downvoted an objectively factual statement.
The black non-Mossad controlled Alex Jones?
Evangelicals are just coping that their Holy Israel is indeed the Synagogue of Satan
What exactly is TPUSA's (dishonest) narrative?
Unless you are referring to something specific, re: Charlie, rather than the assassination, then would it not be more correctly labeled "The Establishment's (dishonest) narrative"?
Asking for a fren...
Addendum: Not going to watch 60 minutes of Owen's to find out exactly what those cracks are. But also, if its "The Official (dishonest) Narrative", it looks like there have been not just a few cracks from the get-go.
Woke up for a glass of water and saw your comment so I'll keep it short.
The (dishonest) TPUSA narrative is identical to the Official (dishonest) narrative:
"Lone gunman."
"30-06 at 140 yards."
"MaN oF sTeEl" - No exit wound.
Nothing to see here involving Israel.
The cracks in the story have been there from the beginning.
"The official narrative" itself cracking, is wholly different.
Thanks for stopping by FI... I always look forward to your posts because you are thinking man.
And the fact that Erika is readily able to speak and didn't take off to avoid what she knew was coming. She was fully aware of what was going on. Not that some of the stuff that was told about her in the past few weeks was true or not, but regardless, as said, follow the wives.. lest we forget.
Then again, it's a movie. Partially inprov to an extent. The details don't matter as much as the overall strategy moving forward.
Follow. The. Wives.
"These hoes ain't loyal…"
Lel. It's true though! Q wouldn't say that if it was a false rabbit hole
"The official narrative" itself cracking, is wholly different. Interesting take fren.I haven't thought about it like that. Narrative vs Official narrative.Thx John.
There were cracks in the story of JFK's assassination basically from the get-go… But the "official narrative" never did crumble to the ground. There was not a meaningful resolution.
Because this shot heard around the world must, by definition, trigger some larger event/happening,
I've been waiting to see the cracks form in the monolith that is the official narrative on its way to complete failure.
I saw this yesterday... Who Moved The Camera Right Above Charlie's Head? | Candace Ep 239 I saw the unseen footage of Charlie Kirk. https://youtube.com/shorts/LrGha11vgms?si=bK46Z4TxEv9b3DKI
Sorry, I have not felt good about Candace in recent times. Before Charlie died, she was already disturbing me. There is a great darkness over her, which got 100 times worse since Charlie died, and I'm not sure what that is about. She is not in Christ right now, that is for sure. She's under some kind of deception. I don't understand what this is all about, but she is not the revealer of truth.
I wont watch her, quit a while back. IMO, just like AJ, she keeps "wandering off the path" trying to prove everything she says ends up twisting up the truths a bit just to fit right for her. Do I think she is a bad actor? Actually no, just as I said, wanders when called out to confirm.
No, You perceive her wandering of what you think is the path. Yet, everyone has their own path, larded with doubt, insecurity, but also faith and security.
Just because we have a view, does not mean we know for a fact what the next step will be.
Looking into the future is like looking into the mist. Looking back, yes, we can all see. And we assume that the future has the same patterns as we have seen in the live and lives behind us.
Are there areas to be critical? I think there are, logically.
But if you are going with the why question, unwittingly you are asking who.
Consider this: the world is filled to the brim with enemies. When your public influence is 10, you are nothing of import to the world powers. But as soon as your reach increases (and this was perfectly visible during Covid on all kinds of media platforms) you become important. Someone of something will attach to you, as a pilot fish to a shark, or if your use it limited, your operation will be put on ice.
"Where there is a body, the vultures will gather". But is need not be that vultures did the killing. Those who try to find out who did the killing, might mistake the killer for a vulture. This is why, her emphasis is on getting the right person or persons.
Such a journey is always beset with rabbit holes. And from what I gather so far, it seems to me the signs of a typical black ops are in place. Perhaps even a ploy within a ploy within a ploy.
It simply means, one party wants something, other parties watching want something else, but are attracted to the same event. It may even be, that within the halls of the spooks, there are groups with opposing interests, or even (partially) aligned interests.
As to her point on Trump not getting involved, that seems like a no brainer. Potus cannot get involved in everything. There a re bigger fish to fry. (optics and objectives. study Q posts on these matters).
But as soon as an event happens with a political dimension, sure, there is the real prospect of it being used for obvious benefit.
But one thing seems clear: a lot of effort has gone into obfuscating the trail. And that, in and of itself, is a tell tale of a carefully planned operation.
Thanks for the book but, I just can NOT watch her just like I can not watch AJ, sometimes I see the spark of "all about Candice or all about AJ" and that feels like a huge let down. Again, I do not think of her as a Bad Actor, just a human that gets sucked into her own hyperbole at times. I am fine with the updates from others on it all. I just trust my instincts with this stuff, like I do with all info absorbed, no hate or finger-point blaming though.
Ditto.
My guess is Illinois had something to do with this, or at least is a part of the whole thing. TPUSA was founded in Illinois (I believe?) and ADL was also founded in Illinois due to the Leo Frank incident so I guess ADL got to Charlie Kirk and Bill Montgomery early on and now President Trump is targeting Chicago and Illinois (Brandon Johnson and JB Pritzker <--- also an Ukrainian jew).
Bruce Rauner, the former Illinois governor before Pritzker, was a huge donor to TPUSA.
Even Barry Soetoro, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuels (another jew) are from Chicago (I know Soetoro isn't but I'm going with what "factcheckers" are saying).
0bama calls Chicago his "hometown."
Yup several of my liberal friends are proud of that cuz they felt like they're intertwined into history, Chicago being part of history since Soetoro is our first black president, just like how many people from Chicago are proud that the current Pope is the first American Pope, hailing from Chicago.
My question is if people are making her life hell and are trying to bankrupt her why not release their names and proof. Why say trusted friends will release it if something happens to her? I'm on the fence here and that's something I just can't understand.
In conspiracy parlance, it's called a dead man's switch.
To be frank, I think Candace is a shill for Candace.
That's what I was thinking. Lol
Candice goes where no one else will go.
She is aware there is more to this and may not be totally correct all the time but she can keep the conversation going with her questions and challanges into Charlie's death and hopefully the truth will come out.
Only the ziobots think she's a shill
I’ve found that people with strong personal principles who go deep research on specific topics tend to uncover inconvenient truths - and fearlessly tell others. Given enough time, this type of person is bound to rub virtually everyone the wrong way.
People with principles like this who come to mind are: Ron Paul (and Rand), Massey, Kirk, and many more. I’m not saying they are always 100% correct or even on the side of righteousness, just principled.
Ty