Literally the most impactful and conspiratorial political assassination of our lifetime; and not only is this board completely uncurious about all the clear inconsistencies and lies from the FBI, but they openly mock and criticize the only actual journalist investigating the murder.
Oh and the investigation is unearthing several more layers of weirdness and corruption implicating ISR@EL, EGYPT, and France (with receipts) and ignored or mocked here.
I think it's worth acknowledging and unpacking how this site APPEARS to be interested in DS coverups; except when it's possible that any of our favorite heroes might be involved.
I've been here since this site was created, and others like me will acknowledge something has been co-opted and infiltrated here
I don't think Charlie Kirk is dead at all, and I really don't trust Candace Owens.
Opinions differ I guess.
The problem I have with the "<insert name here>" is not dead, they ackshully faked their death(s) narrative is that the notion is entirely born from low-tier paytriots.
These hypothesis' were roundly rejected on the original bakery boards over the years and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence or proof that anyone has faked their death with the lone exception being Epstein.
If Juan O Savin or Stew Peters or some other charlatan snake oil salesman is the source of a claim as bold as prominent person's death is faked by WH and the bakery/anons majority reject these wild notions, then I fail to see why they are supported by jannies or anyone here.
I totally take your point, but I reached my conclusion not by listening to any of those guys, but by looking at the available evidence around the event such as the impossibility of the 30.06 round story and by looking at the actions of the team around and just after the event.
The official information was entirely opaque too, with obvious lies coming from the team that said they handled the body.
Given all this, I decided that the event was a planned exfiltration using Hollywood style prosthetics, squibs and blood bags. This is why none of the ballistics or apparent wound behaviour make any sense.
Thank Q for the eloquent concise reply. You may have come up with your own personal theory as such, but you know exactly what I meant. There's only one infotainment source(s) that push the fake death theories, and it should be pointed out.
That being said, I must repeat that there is zero empirical evidence to support this:
Now, there is empirical evidence and behavior to suggest there are state actors involved in the assassination. From Naziyahoo being the first person to react publicly, to the occurrence of foriegn government aircraft seemingly tailing Kirk for months, to the search term history location source data....
Those three points alone have been documented and backed up by multiple sources and with data sauce. And, that's just the concrete easy to prove points. Not mentioning the litany or circumstantial events, reactions, and other habbenings that segway into those three data points.
Not trying to argue, just reporting the facts as they are fren o7
o7 good points.
For me, there is no empirical evidence that he was shot. The given gun story is not possible, the wound was incoherent and needed special narratives like a breast plate. The occams razor approach in this case was that he wasn't shot at all.
Other data are things like that nobody tried to apply pressure to his wounds.