The Charlie Kirk assassination and the impulse to declare things as forgeries

[Wetzelrad]

Introduction, on forgeries

When it comes to controversial topics, there is a common kneejerk reaction of declaring any piece of contrary evidence to be a fake or forgery. This is something we see frequently with the Holocaust, on both sides, but also with other major historical and political topics.

To begin with, it's not an entirely unfounded reaction. We all know of real, consequential forgeries, like FDR's map of a Nazi plan to partition South America, or the Kuwaiti ambassador's babies-taken-from-incubators story, or the Gulf of Tonkin attack. Examples like these have had an enormous cost in human life.

But there are also endless examples of false accusations of fakery, like the Israeli government's claims that videos in Gaza are staged with dolls or actors, or the competing accusations of forgery over the course of the war between Russia and Ukraine, or the Zimmerman telegram from WWI which was widely thought to be a forgery. In possibly the worst case, Alex Jones raised theories of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting being somehow fake, then retracted those theories later, only to be hit much later with unprecedented legal judgements against him in excess of $1 billion. Examples like these should surely make one consider the costs of making a reckless accusation.

Now obviously this type of accusation is a powerful narrative tool. If you can convince your audience that your opponent has forged evidence against you, it simultaneously clears yourself of blame and harms your opponent's reputation. Highly effective. But if you fail, the reputational harm lands on you and your cause.

In the case of the Holocaust, I do think there is an overeagerness to say that remarks attributed to the Nazis are forgeries. In many cases this seems to be not only untrue but totally unnecessary. Many of the Extermination Theory's most important prooftexts are evidence to the contrary when read in their full and proper context. Here I will direct the reader to this post by Callafangers in a thread by Archie on this same subject:

While it's entirely plausible that certain documents or other materials have been faked (given we know various powers have had motive, means, and patterns of deception, historically), I do see quite often that people (including Revisionists) do not take long enough to carefully consider everything in proper context. I think the Himmler Posen speech is a prime example of this.

The Charlie Kirk assassination

Charlie Kirk was killed almost a month ago. From the first day, various political forces have tried to pin the assassination on their ideological enemies. These primarily fall into right versus left, groyper versus communist, and Zionist versus anti-Zionist. Even Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't resist the urge to connect the killing with Islam. Members of these groups have since accused seemingly every single piece of evidence connected with the case of being faked, a behavior that would surely be discrediting if any side had the good sense not to participate in it. Here I will briefly go over some of those accusations.

1) Messages written on the bullet casings. These were found on the rooftop where the shooting occurred. The messages clearly indicate leftist leanings. Some replies have claimed they were a false trail left by a MAGA shooter, or they are fake because the messages were too long (up to 9 words) to fit on the casings, or that they would not be "engraved" as Governor Cox said, or that the FBI and police are just generally untrustworthy.

2) Photos of the shooter. Some replies have said these captures seem fake for no particular reason. Ron Unz found it suspicious that only two photos were given.

3) Video of shooter on the rooftop. This fuzzy video depicts the assassin fleeing the scene. Repliers were skeptical for various reasons, chiefly because they couldn't make out the gun he was carrying. Later, after it was determined that this video camera should have captured the shooting itself, skeptics theorized that the reason those earlier events were not included in the cut is because they did not actually happen on video.

4) Tyler Robinson's text message confession. This has been called "too convenient", "too perfect", and too "inorganic" for a text chat between young men.

5) Tyler Robinson's Discord message confession. This was called fake because Discord initially denied it, according to TMZ's reporting, but all other sources have since confirmed it as real.

6) DNA evidence found on a towel and screwdriver. These positively link Robinson to the rifle and the rooftop. Skeptics said this didn't make sense because they thought the rifle should be disassembled after the shooting and also because Robinson would need to have kept the screwdriver to reassemble it.

7) Charlie Kirk's letter to Netanyahu. This was called a lie, a lie by omission, and a misrepresentation, although it's not clear why. The subsequent publishing of the full letter, presumably leaked by Netanyahu, seems to have verified his claims, but that too has been called a fake.

8) Charlie Kirk's Zionist groupchat. This screenshot was initially called fake only because it easily could be faked. However, Kirk's executive producer has since confirmed the screenshot's veracity.

My judgement is that all of the above accusations were very poorly made. Several have been outright disproven already. In every case it is and was easily predictable that these items would turn out to be legitimate because they came from (relatively) credible sources with reputations to lose. Whereas if the items were illegitimate then we would expect a vocal denial from other involved parties, including the telephone company, Discord's staff, friends and family, the media, etc. It is inevitable that many of these items (and others less remarked upon, like the handwritten confession) will become even further beyond reproach when the case goes to trial.

So it was totally reckless and discrediting to declare things as forgeries based on mere skepticism. There is an obvious lesson here for skeptics generally and for revisionists specifically.

Apologies if this was too long winded. I am also willing to argue that Israel did not commit the assassination if anyone feels inclined.

[Cowboy]

This is one of the issues that was foreseeable with "great awakening" this year about Israel, Jews, etc. A lot of people who very recently had these revelations are very eager to blame them for every single negative thing that occurs in the world. This leads to people manipulating or simply making up stories to push this theory.

Instead of looking at the facts of the case and determining what happened, people started working backwards from the "Israel did it" conclusion, which left them scraping for evidence, and in some cases forging evidence. The main perpetrators of this were Candace Owens and Max Blumenthal, who tried to insinuate that Israel was behind the killing because Charlie Kirk turned down $500 million from Israel. Blumenthal also said that Kirk was berated by his Jewish donors (such as Bill Ackman) at a private event for not being sufficiently pro-Israel enough. Both of these accusations were sufficiently rebutted, and the rebuttals did not receive any pushback from Owens or Blumenthal.

They didn't necessarily forge a document or a transcript, but this shows how working backwards from a conclusion (sort of like how we see exterminationists do) can incline people to exaggerate/make things up. I do think it is important to not jump to calling everything a forgery, but I'd argue it's also important to evaluate the motives of the person giving out the information

Focusing more on the theory in itself, with the authentic leak from the group chat today, the Israel-killed-Kirk theorists are victory lapping. The leak in itself doesn't really shock me since it was obvious that there was going to be some internal conflict from the donors due to the loss of public support for Israel. Every event that Kirk went to, he would get asked about Israel from both a left-wing and a right-wing perspective. People were hurling quotes from the Talmud at him. Basically, he was either going to get called a shill for Israel or be called antisemitic by Zionist Jews. His hand was forced to bring someone like Tucker Carlson to try and maintain credibility with the younger, particularly white male demographic at the expense of donor money from Jews.

Do I think it's possible that Israel was involved in his assassination? Of course. We know that Israel is notorious for political assassinations throughout its existence, so if there was sufficient evidence to prove that Israel was responsible for Kirk's death then I would be on board with the theory. I've just yet to see anything convincing.

Great post and good job at bringing the issue of forgeries to the forefront.

[Archie]

I have always thought about document authenticity in probabilistic terms. I think people feel too much pressure to make a definitive binary judgment even when there is not sufficient information. It's okay to say it is not conclusive. On the Holocaust, as I think major mass scale forgery is not likely, my prior is that the vast majority of Holocaust-related documents are presumably authentic, but at the same time we cannot in many cases be absolutely sure of the authenticity of particular documents.

In psychology there is a phenomenon called belief perseverance which refers to how people are conservative with their beliefs and update them fairly slowly in response to new information. While this is not always ideal from a scientific perspective, practically speaking it's probably rational behavior in that new information often is fake, out of context, misleading, etc., so you don't want to overreact to it. If you were to change your fundamental worldview every time you read something new, you would probably go crazy.

If someone has spent say 100 or 200 hours studying the Holocaust and has concluded it is false (or true), that will start becoming a fixed belief. It becomes harder to change. If there is some document that is difficult to explain, the instinct will be to dismiss it in some fashion because it is inconsistent what everything else you "know." If you are right about everything else, then the incongruous information probably does have some explanation even if it is not known or immediately obvious. Intellectually, nothing should be dismissed without due consideration, but as an instinct it is understandable (especially since people do not have infinite time to research every little thing). But rather than crying forgery, I think the better approach would be to offer some possible interpretations and to be okay with leaving some things as open questions. People tend not to like open questions I assume because that sort of caution doesn't play well in a debate if the other side is going heavy on the bluster and overconfidence.

Here's how I think about this. Given the immense volume of Holocaust-related documents (millions of pages), we should expect a good number to present some difficulties and/or have uncertain interpretations. There is no need to have a perfect explanation for every single document. In some cases, essential context may be lost, any number of things. Forgery can seem like an easy out, but if it can't be proved then it is really just stepping over the problem.

Regarding current events and social media, those platforms just do not lend themselves to rigorous research, and it can be quite hard to evaluate sources in real time. Social media is all about recent posts. In your typical social media feed, stuff people were saying yesterday is old and buried. So predictably people just jump on whatever gives them confirmation bias.

Trust in public institutions is definitely at a low point, and conspiratorial thinking is an expected corollary. The thing is that knowing that institutions X, Y, Z are untrustworthy doesn't actually get you very far. It just leaves a vacuum which is filled with wild speculation.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Introduction, on forgeries
When it comes to (i) controversial topics, there is a common kneejerk (ii) reaction of declaring any piece of contrary (iii) evidence to be a fake or forgery.

I think you are framing this in an unhelpful way. I mean in a way that doesn’t serve an honest enquiry into what is true.
I.e. I suggest that you are starting from a vague and imprecise premise. I think what you are referring to is something else entirely. But… More on that later.

Let’s break your starting premise down. It consists of three parts:
1. a topic;
2. a reaction to it;
3. evidence (for or against) it.

Let's start with the 2nd part.
2. reaction.
Q. Is it actually a “common reaction” to do that?
Q. By whom is that “common”?
You appear to be implying we ALL do that. And I think you are implying that as a starting point for later dismissing as ‘bogus’ any analysis of the multiple inconsistencies of the official Kirk-killing narrative.

Then, let’s next analyse the 1st part of your premise.
1. topic.
you refer to a “controversial topic”!!
A public and filmed execution — of a popular but divisive shill for Israel who had recently rejected a deal with Netanyahu and was becoming publicly critical of ‘Israel’ — publicly killed in front of 4k cameras and a quite large audience is hardly a “controversial topic”. That’s daylight murder.
So that’s just one example of what I mean. By implying that such a public murder is just another “controversial topic” I am suggesting shows you have started from a flawed perspective.

3. evidence.
The credibility and reliability of the evidence is all we should be concerned with. So whether it’s fake or credible is all this is about.

So here’s a proposed replacement to your opening statement.
How about this instead:

“The government and main-stream-media are now so corrupted and controlled by zionist forces that anything they claim which justifies or whitewashes possible/probable Israeli crimes or serves a zionist agenda is quite rightly regarded with a healthy degree of skepticism.”

I’m suggesting that's a more helpful introduction to:
a.) understanding why people are doubtful of the ‘lone, leftist, gunman’ narrative;
b.) assessing the rival theories about the Kirk killing,
because it definitely IS a highly possible/probable Israeli crime.
Plus we need to be aware that the Israelis and their sayanim helpers are experts in assassinations with red-herring false-trails and governmental cover-ups.
So if we DON’T start with an awareness of THAT possibility/probability we are allowing ourselves to be easily deceived/duped.

To begin with, it's not an entirely unfounded reaction. We all know of real, consequential forgeries…

Yes, you give examples of well-known forgeries. But not who they served. Which is the most crucial question.

… there are also endless examples of false accusations of fakery

Sure. But again the way to see through them is to ask Cicero’s decisive question: Cui bono?

…possibly the worst case, Alex Jones raised theories of the Sandy Hook school shooting being somehow fake…

Alex Jones is professional camouflage producer. His job is to keep the masses excited and confused with some truths but mainly with sensational narratives that are distorted with idle speculation, rumour, and outright-falsehoods.
The purpose is to make it easy to disregard accurate analysis of governmental criminality and lies with: “oh, that’s just nonsense conspiracy theory”.
Summary: he’s a paid ‘smoke-screen’ producer.

The Charlie Kirk assassination

The official narrative of this public execution has all the ingredients of a deliberate deception.
The decision to not release:
1.) a doctor’s testimony or an autopsy report;
2.) the conclusion of ALL the available video evidence;
3.) the bullet (if there was one);
etc., etc., etc. (I’ve been previously told by the moderators they don’t want detailed discussion of this here at CODOH).
Those deliberate, officially-decided gaps of information invite speculation.
= That speculation and confusion is desired!

E.g. People are arguing online whether an autopsy was even performed! A fact which it would be EXTREMELY EASY to lay to rest. Yet that hasn’t been done.
Why?
E.g. People are arguing over whether the neck-wound we all saw is an entry or exit wound. Again that would be EXTREMELY EASY to settle, but they allow speculation.
Why?
Etc., etc.
I suggest it is because that uncertainty is desired as it enables the deceivers to dominate the discussion with two things: i.) a non-credible official narrative and ii.) many, speculative and often bizarre theories. The result is that the speculation puts off most people, allowing the ‘official’ story/deception to present itself as ‘sane’ and ‘responsible’.
People who want to believe their government and national institutions have their best interests at heart, will buy into the ‘official’ narrative for mental comfort.

“Is the purpose of the absence of facts [a deliberate policy in order] to produce competing theories to argue about and thus bury the facts?
Why can’t some independent authority – not the whore media, nor the FBI – say whether there are entrance and exit wounds and what weapon they are compatible with?
Why can’t the bullet be identified if it is true that the surgeon found it in Kirk’s neck ‘under the skin’.
The absence of the basic facts tells us that we are not meant to know.”
~ Paul Craig Roberts (who formerly held a sub-cabinet office in the United States federal government as well as teaching positions at several U.S. universities.)

FINALLY:
Apparently there were many ‘new’ groups of people who dealt with the aftermath of Kirk’s murder that were put in place shortly BEFORE the shooting:
— A new chief surgeon at the hospital they took him to (which wasn’t the closest nor had most experienced staff).
— A new department of FBI investigators who were assigned the investigation yet who were not the closest but are based far away from Utah.
— A new guy in charge of the judiciary in Utah who gets to choose who is Tyler Robinsons’ defence attorney
— a new guy at the not-nearest hospital who was chosen to do the autopsy.
Etc.

Which — if accurate — demonstrates an obvious institutionalised killing with people in place to cover it up and convict the planned patsy.
So who has the capability to do that?
And… CUI BONO?

Consequently, it is fair and intelligent to conclude this killing + MSM deriliction of journalistic duty, plus smokescreen speculation, plus inconsistent, deceptive FBI narrative, has Israel and Mossad all over it.
And if you dismiss that explanation outright as ‘anti-semitic conspiracy theory’ I respectfully suggest to you that you have been successfully conditioned.

CONCLUSION:
See here: viewtopic.php?p=16888#p16888

[Stubble]

I suggest it is because that uncertainty is desired as it enables the deceivers to dominate the discussion with two things: i.) a non-credible official narrative and ii.) many, speculative and often bizarre theories. The result is that the speculation puts off most people, allowing the ‘official’ story/deception to present itself as ‘sane’ and ‘responsible’.

Some food for thought, another reason to leave questions open and unresolved is to create fractures and division.

/shrug

I'm also confused by your 'conclusion' as it is just a link to a nod to 'Missing Bob so we Sob' by Fangers. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the Kirk assassination etc.

Now, one thing that I don't like about the situation with the Kirk assassination is that it has earmarks of an op. So far we have seen the front loading of narratives, we have seen the zone flooded, and we have seen members of the CAA (who often work hand in glove with intelligence agencies like the CIA) come out and speak to things they don't really know, like the guy that was called an 'expert' talking about taking a rifle down by spinning it in half, even after the rifle had been recovered and was obviously not such a weapon.

Things about the murder of Charlie Kirk are starting to stink, and the media apparatus is acting like the state, or an 'ally' is guilty...

[Wahrheitssucher]

I suggest it is because that uncertainty is desired as it enables the deceivers to dominate the discussion with two things: i.) a non-credible official narrative and ii.) many, speculative and often bizarre theories. The result is that the speculation puts off most people, allowing the ‘official’ story/deception to present itself as ‘sane’ and ‘responsible’.

I'm confused by your 'conclusion' as it is just a link to a nod to 'Missing Bob so we Sob' by Fangers. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the Kirk assassination etc… [snip]

…Things about the murder of Charlie Kirk are starting to stink, and the median apparatus is acting like the state, or an 'ally' is guilty...

Your last line is the connection.

Both narratives rather O B V I O U S L Y “stink” but anyone noticing that is smeared as an ‘anti-semitic conspiracy theorist’.

[HansHill]

Wahrheitssucher:

I am personally open to the idea that Israel is connected to the Kirk assassination. I see you are of a similar opinion to me. We differ in a few ways, mostly - I am completely on the fence of committing to that position without seeing something substantial, and you seem to be a lot firmer on this.

I have seen many of your posts about this topic, but I haven't seen you say anything substantial, unless of course I have missed something which is possible. Given you are so firm on this position, please red pill me on this. I'll be the easiest person on planet earth to red pill.

What is the evidence that I may have possibly missed, that Israel is connected to the Kirk assassination?

[Wetzelrad]

When it comes to (i) controversial topics, there is a common kneejerk (ii) reaction of declaring any piece of contrary (iii) evidence to be a fake or forgery.

[...]
Q. Is it actually a “common reaction” to do that?
Q. By whom is that “common”?
You appear to be implying we ALL do that.

I can't quantify how common it is, but it's common enough for me to remark upon. My first exposure to Holocaust Revisionism was people on 4chan who were very quick to call things like the Posen speeches fake, with very little to back the accusation up. This opened them up to easy rebuttals from people who were more familiar with the material. It's foolish behavior, plus it gets in the way of stronger arguments having to do with interpretation and context.

Frankly this also includes myself. I have in the past assumed or suggested there was forgery of materials that I now think are legitimate (or more plausibly legitimate). Some related to the Holocaust.

The same is true of Holocaust Exterminationists also. Show them a document with Himmler calling for inmate mortality to be reduced or the Enigma decrypts about camp activities and some of them will immediately call their authenticity into question.

One of our own forum users actually claims that "the overwhelming majority of information" posted here is false. Effectively accusing us of mass forgery. CJ also claims that historical charges of coin clipping and quotes from the Talmud are mostly fabricated. Another fabrication accusation he uses is the postwar narrative that the Allies built around the Gleiwitz transmitter attack. This is not to pick on him specifically, but just to show that this poor form of argument is common across the spectrum.

you refer to a “controversial topic”!!
A public and filmed execution — of a popular but divisive shill for Israel who had recently rejected a deal with Netanyahu and was becoming publicly critical of ‘Israel’ — publicly killed in front of 4k cameras and a quite large audience is hardly a “controversial topic”. That’s daylight murder.
So that’s just one example of what I mean. By implying that such a public murder is just another “controversial topic” I am suggesting shows you have started from a flawed perspective.

By controversial topic, I am trying to refer to a category containing every topic where this type of dispute arises. In specific I had in mind Sandy Hook, Flat Earth Theory, and some of Israel's confirmed assassinations. I admit I am not a wordsmith so maybe there is a better way to refer to this.

The credibility and reliability of the evidence is all we should be concerned with. So whether it’s fake or credible is all this is about.

It would be nice if this were so, but most people's actions are actually guided quite heavily by forces other than truth. If we use Candace Owens as an example, her opponents have capitalized on her recent statement that Charlie Kirk came to her in a dream and told her he was betrayed. The day prior, she declared, "If I found Brigitte's penis, I will find who killed Charlie Kirk." She may have decided to say these things entirely because of her honest commitment to and pursuit of truth, but to a normal audience she must sound like a lunatic. That concerns me, and for better or worse it does weigh on how people consider the evidence.

So here’s a proposed replacement to your opening statement.
How about this instead:

“The government and main-stream-media are now so corrupted and controlled by zionist forces that anything they claim which justifies or whitewashes possible/probable Israeli crimes or serves a zionist agenda is quite rightly regarded with a healthy degree of skepticism.”

Sure, this is a very agreeable statement, and it's a positive development. It's just not what I was getting at.

I suggest it is because that uncertainty is desired as it enables the deceivers to dominate the discussion with two things: i.) a non-credible official narrative and ii.) many, speculative and often bizarre theories. The result is that the speculation puts off most people, allowing the ‘official’ story/deception to present itself as ‘sane’ and ‘responsible’.

This idea is novel to me. It makes some sense.

Whether you're right or wrong, I would like to introduce caution to all those people who are making the speculative and bizarre theories. They need to be told it is not helpful.

The official narrative of this public execution has all the ingredients of a deliberate deception.
The decision to not release:
1.) a doctor’s testimony or an autopsy report;
2.) the conclusion of ALL the available video evidence;
3.) the bullet (if there was one);
etc., etc., etc. (I’ve been previously told by the moderators they don’t want detailed discussion of this here at CODOH).

I think it would be in the public's interest to have all that information, especially the videos in their original capture quality. But I can accept that part of the reason we don't have it is because they want to try the case without undue biasing of the jury. I would make the same decision in their shoes.

The moderators can of course lock this topic if they so choose. I won't be offended.

E.g. People are arguing online whether an autopsy was even performed! A fact which it would be EXTREMELY EASY to lay to rest. Yet that hasn’t been done.

I think they are arguing at clouds. Multiple news outlets reported as it happened that the body was moved to the medical examiner's office for autopsy. Robinson's indictment tells us, "The Medical Examiner’s report is pending." Google tells me that on average this will take 4-12 weeks to be complete. Even then, I'm not sure we should expect it to be made public before trial.

Apparently there were many ‘new’ groups of people who dealt with the aftermath of Kirk’s murder that were put in place shortly BEFORE the shooting:
— A new chief surgeon at the hospital they took him to (which wasn’t the closest nor had most experienced staff).
— A new department of FBI investigators who were assigned the investigation yet who were not the closest but are based far away from Utah.
— A new guy in charge of the judiciary in Utah who gets to choose who is Tyler Robinsons’ defence attorney
— a new guy at the not-nearest hospital who was chosen to do the autopsy.
Etc.

After watching the clip from Owens:
- Zenger was hired as CEO, not "lead surgeon". He's an expert at surgery which could make him relevant, but as Owens admits there is currently nothing to say he was near Kirk. He was hired in August so hardly his "first day".
- Bohls does appear to have been put there recently, but this is not especially suspicious with the Trump admin still replacing old staff. Possibly he was even installed specifically to handle this investigation, which would be fair. Still, Bohls will probably be the person most deserving of suspicion going forward.
- According to Owens, the judge was newly appointed in May, which to me seems irrelevant.
- The person that did the autopsy would be the medical examiner, not the "coroner". But maybe that's what she meant? Still, no name or source to check.

[Wetzelrad]

Here is my brief case for why I think Israel was uninvolved in the assassination. The point of comparion I will use is the JFK assassination, my understanding of which comes largely from Ron Unz's writings.

JFK's assassination appears to have been an Israeli op for many, substantive reasons:
- The second investigatory commission determined there were multiple shooters, making a conspiracy eminently plausible.
- The alleged assassin Oswald immediately told the public he was a patsy.
- A Jewish reporter named Sam Bloom convinced Dallas police to perp walk Oswald, reportedly.
- A Jewish mobster named Jack Ruby then assassinated Oswald, silencing him.
- The primary footage came from a Jew named Abraham Zapruder.
- JFK was invited to Dallas on this occasion by the Dallas Citizens Council, which was founded by a Jew and directed by a Jew.
- The Dallas Textiles Building which was well-situated for a shooter was owned by a Jew.
- Israel's man in the FBI James Angleton classified references to Israel in the JFK files.
- Documents show that JFK and RFK were struggling at that time to get AZC to register as a foreign agent, which LBJ did not continue.
- Documents show JFK was trying to restrict Israel's nuclear activities, which LBJ did not continue.
- Documents show that the JFK admin was trying to force Israel to give Palestinians right of return to their homes, which LBJ did not continue.
- JFK ran afoul of PM David Ben Gurion, who then resigned in an unexplained incident.
- The Kennedys already had a bad reputation with Jews. JFK's father Joseph is considered an antisemite, and JFK was a member of the America First Committee during the war.

This is very strong evidence for Israel's involvement. Not just motive, but actual involvement by name and action.

By comparison, proponents of the theory that Israel killed Kirk have sought to build a strong motive but little else. That motive is highly questionable because of how strong Kirk's defense of Israel had long been. As for activities, there were definitely a lot of Jews and Zionists in Kirk's friendgroup, but their actions have not been particularly suspicious. The many videos of the event seem highly consistent with a lone shooter from Robinson's alleged location.

One way to look at this is that it's considered beyond the pale to raise the theory for JFK despite all that evidence, so why burn political capital raising the theory for Kirk which is much less evidenced? I don't like having to think this way, but it does seem like people I respect are getting burned on this.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Wahrheitssucher:
I am personally open to the idea that Israel is connected to the Kirk assassination. I see you are of a similar opinion to me. We differ in a few ways, mostly - I am completely on the fence of committing to that position without seeing something substantial, and you seem to be a lot firmer on this.

I have seen many of your posts about this topic, but I haven't seen you say anything substantial, unless of course I have missed something which is possible. Given you are so firm on this position, please red pill me on this. I'll be the easiest person on planet earth to red pill.

What is the evidence that I may have possibly missed, that Israel is connected to the Kirk assassination?

I am not firm on any position! Not yet.
Perhaps what gave you that impression is my robust replies to anyone prematurely pouring scorn on that possibility of Israeli guilt.
But I am not “firm” yet on any position. Not on the Kirk killing. Not on the doubtful holyH mass-gassing narrative; nor on the Mossad involvement in JFK and RFK assassinations; not on their guilt for numerous other assassinations of Olaf Palme, Anna Lindh, Alexander Litvinenko, Lady Diana killings; the Salisbury Skripal poisonings; the 911 attacks, etc. I think it is a high probability in all of those cases. And I think that for reasons based on the evidence in each case.
What I wrote regarding the role of Mossad and their zionist-loyal sayanim supporters being responsible for the recent public execution of Charlie Kirk was this:
“…if we DON’T start with an awareness of THAT possibility/probability we are allowing ourselves to be easily deceived/duped.”

I can go into the details why I suspect this, but it isn’t conclusive evidence. It will just be a long list of clear inconsistencies and false info in the official narrative, plus who has the ability to cover all that up in the USA, plus who benefits.
I.e. pretty much everything is there in what I wrote in reply to Wetzelrad. All anyone can do at this stage is list more of the many notable false trials, and misinformation tactics of the msm and official narrative.
We all have to wait and see how this develops.

[HansHill]

I am not firm on any position! Not yet...

...I can go into the details why I suspect this, but it isn’t conclusive evidence....

..We all have to wait and see how this develops.

Got it, thanks for the response WS. Like I said I'm open to this, but i guess we will have to wait and see.

[Scott]

For the most part the only information on the Charlie Kirk shooting that has been released is some campus surveillance video that was used successfully to smoke out the killer ─ whose parents recognized him ─ and the charging documents, which presents a damning case. We will learn more at the trial, such as the electronic metadata authentication of the texts and chats between Tyler Robinson confessing to his boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, who will undoubtedly be a witness in the trial. The messages are cherrypicked so may appear strange but will be definitively authenticated by experts at the trial.

I discuss this more on a thread over at RODOH. Grifters like Candace Owens just don't know what they are talking about.

There is zero evidence to suggest Israeli involvement even though Charlie Kirk may have been less of a shill for Zionism since the October 7, 2023 hang-glider attacks on Israel, and the IDF war in Gaza. When Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA visited college campuses, Marxist professors typically signed petititons trying to get him banned as a "White Nationalist." Well, this claim was lucricous, although Charlie's brand of Christian Conservatism was far more laudible than the ideals of his AntiFa critics.

I think there is indeed a tendency for folks who are skeptical of many things coming from the government or the establishment towards what I call Epistemological Nihilism ─ or it other words, "a theory of knowledge based on the total rejection of established laws and institutions."

So everything has to be a lie. Infinite hambone conspiracy-theory.

Not only is this logically fallacious but it isn't helpful when we live in times where now more than ever we have to refine a sense of being able to weigh facts and evidence. What is probably true and what is probably B.S. is a pretty fundamental skill needed by historiographers of real history.

And one of the simplest and likeliest ways to do this correctly is with the old Occam's Razor principle of parsimony.

The simplest answer ─ in this case the Lone Gunman theory ─ is the most probable simply because to get anything else requires a lot of hand-waiving and imaginings that are simply not part of the known evidence.

When I first saw the rough shakicam dub on TV of the November 22, 1963 Zapruder film, I too thought that there must have been two shooters at Dealey Plaza. Plus, President Johnson put a lot of people on the Warren Commission whom he trusted to find out 1) whether he was an intended target, and 2) whether the Soviet Union had a hand in it. Now, I don't think much for the politics of Chief Justice Earl Warren, but that does not mean that the Warren Commission Report was a "rush to judgement," let alone a coverup.

Having grown up in Idaho, I also paid a lot of attention to the Congressional hearings in the 1970s on assassinations initiated by Senator Frank Church (D-ID). These hearings, btw support the Lone Gunman theory, despite going extensively into territory that the Warren Commission thought unimportant to the case like the CIA (no connection to Lee Harvey Oswald).

One acoustic analysis of a dictagraph recording of the JFK shooting from a Dealey Plaza police motorcycle's 2-way radio with a stuck microphone appeared to validate that a shot might have come from the Grassy Knoll. But that audiographic study was meticulously redone and that startling conclusion is simply no longer valid.

Also, contrary to what TV presenter Gerald Rivera says, most of the scores of witnesses interviewed who were at Dealey Plaza said that the shot came from the Texas School Book Depository Building upper floor where Oswald's sniper's nest was found.

In fact, because of the J.D. Tippit shooting while Oswald was trying to flee, the Dallas Police Department solved the JFK assassination in a couple of hours ─ and they followed up on leads for long after that to be thorough. Oswald was the only one missing from his place of employment after the shooting so a general description went out to the police and broadcast radio, which probably caught Officer J.D. Tippit's interest, who stopped his car and got out to talk to Oswald hurrying along.

Witnesses saw Oswald pump four rounds into Officer Tippit near 10th St. and Patton where four cartridge casings were found that matched Oswald's customized Smith & Wesson revolver that was in his possession when he was captured at the nearby Texas Theater in the Oak Cliffs neighborhood of Dallas near where Oswald lived in a boarding house that was about two miles from Dealey Plaza.

The reason that the public thinks there was a conspiracy is 1) because Oswald was murdered two days after capture by a neurotic nightclub-owning Jew named Jack Ruby (Jacob Rubenstein) who thought that Jack Kennedy was a Righteous Gentile, and 2) with no trial to answer many basic questions, the media and publishers have been milking the controversy for decades, and they always pose a question without providing a satisfactory answer (deliberately so). It was an early version of clickbait.

When the 1991 Oliver Stone film JFK came out, I was working as a TV and Radio broadcasting engineer and an excellent copy of the Zapruder film was downloadable so to speak ─ the World Wide Web didn't even exist yet ─ but networks shared stuff via satellite feeds. So I burned a copy onto 1 inch Ampex analog reel-to-reel videotape which enabled me to look at the Zapruder film frame-by-frame and stabilized.

Yeah, the idea that Kennedy's head lunges rearward with the final shot is simply not the case ─ and it appearing to do so on the ABC television Gerald Rivera TV show in 1975 is simply an optical illusion from a very bad film to video transfer.

This was the first time that the public had ever seen the JFK shooting in motion, although there were a few stills published from the Zapruder film in Life magazine and so on but not the gruesome "money shot."

VIDEO 1

The Zapruder film was 8mm color, which is better quality that VHS videotape or even broadcast analog television, but the later was actually optimized to handle fast motion for broadcasting sportsball games when the NTSC standard was created in 1953.

The now obsolescent analog NTSC-TV handles 60 fields per second interlaced to 30 frames-per-second to reduce flicker on television sets. Motion picture 35mm cinema film uses a 24 frames-per-second format which works well for action except for very fast motion such as the spokes on stage coach wheels.

But the Bell & Howell 8mm handheld home movie camera used by Zapruder only recorded at about 18 frames per second from a wonky spring mechanism, so it didn't record the motion particularly well. And neither is Jewish dressmaker, Abraham Zapruder (a big Kennedy admirer) filming as steadily as we would like. Zapruder actually had one of his secretaries holding him by the waist while he stood on the pedestal at the Grassy Knoll in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building so that he would not lose his balance while filming the 26 second historical treasure.

The Zapruder film also has no sound, so we can't tell exactly when the shots were fired. The Warren Commission was of two minds whether the first shot missed or (theory 2) hit either Kennedy or Connally.

The second shot hitting the other man, and the third or "money shot" hitting Kennedy fatally in the head from the distance of 81 meters (266 feet). Most rifles are sighted in at 100 meters so this is not anything remarkable. Contrary to popular belief, ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald did not have to be a super good shot.

The Warren Commission voted on the two competing theories and decided on (theory 1) in the following version:

The first shot Oswald fired missed the limousine, but downrange it hit bystander James Tague watching from the triple underpass. He got a minor injury on his cheek (drawing blood) with a rock or bullet fragment.

The second shot hit Kennedy in the back of his neck/right shoulder skirting his spinal column and trachea and exiting at the knot on his necktie. The same bullet then hit Governor Connally who was on a jump seat in front and below Kennedy slightly and to the side. It keyholed as it entered his back, shattered some ribs back and front, exited his chest, made contact with his wrist bone, shattering it, and then penetrated his Left pant leg at the thigh but did not penetrate his flesh.

Since the second projectile fired did not mushroom, this so-called Magic Bullet (a full-metal-jacketed Italian military round designed to penetrate) was damaged and hardly "pristine," though that is how the media continues to describe it. This bullet was found at the hospital on Connally's gurney after they cut his clothes off.

The magic bullet did wound two men, but contrary to Oliver Stone and Kevin Costner in the 1991 film JFK, it did not do any midair path changes. This has subsequently been confirmed with laser pointers at Dealey Plaza.

The Magic Bullet did not do anything "magic," except penetrate, which is what it was designed to do as a full-metal-jacketed projectile. It is important to note that contrary to the diagram in the Warren Commission Report, Governor Connally was not sitting exactly in front of Kennedy but slightly lower and to the side because he and Mrs. Connally were each sitting on Jump seats, while the President and Mrs. Kennedy were sitting on a elevated back bench seat.

The third and final shot that killed Kennedy instantly, entered the back of his skull near the top and to the Right and caused the bone plates of his skull to separate. The bone plate on the right side of his head folded open and was held onto his face by the skin connected at the bottom.

Upon penetration of his skull, the President turns into an instant rag doll and he does fall back, but the head does not move more than an inch or two either way by the bullet impact. The fatal bullet was likely deflected just enough to clear the framing of the automobile ahead of the President's seat and was lost. Some very small bullet fragments were found in the limousine carpeting. In high resolution, you can see white pieces of Kennedy's skull flying away at high angles to his front near the top of frame 313 (zoomed out) in the Zapruder film.

At the Parkland Hospital emergency room, the trauma surgeon performed a tracheotomy on JFK's throat to allow an airway, but the President was dead-on-arrival. This obliterated the bullet exit hole on the neck, which causes confusion to this day as to whether the bullet entered the rear or the front of Kennedy's neck.

It was sorted out later during the autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland. The body should have been autopsied by the Medical Examiner in Dallas, who had jurisdiction under the existing laws, but Mrs. Kennedy did not want an autopsy done at all, and so the Secret service took the body away on Air Forece One. But this was a homicicde, so eventually the Kennedies agreed to let the U.S. Navy do the postmortem since Jack had once been a naval officer. Contrary to popular belief, the Navy pathologists did not botch the autopsy.

Today, high-resolution digitized versions of the Zapruder film are available on YouTube. This is basically what I found in 1991 when I examined the video by frame with high-quality analog equipment. The Zapruder film does not in any way contradict the Warren Commission Report that the shooter acted alone.







Back to Chalrie Kirk. No we don't have a full police report yet and likely won't get one until the trial. We do not have the autopsy report yet. We don't even have a basic ballistics report yet. They did not release the portion of the Utah Valley University surveillance video that shows the actual shooting, just the getaway, and some home doorbell camera footage of Mr. Robinson casing the neighborhood and walking with a limp from the rifle stuffed down his Right pant leg.

Tyler Robinson left the screwdriver that he used to reassemble the rifle on the roof and it had his DNA on it. He stashed the assembled rifle wrapped in a towel in a copse of trees just off campus when he was getting away but was not able to retrieve it later. Lots of DNA found too, and he suspected that they might find some of his prints on the rifle when he confessed to his "transitioning" boyfriend in texts and chats. Tyler's parents recognized him from the released photos and confronted him about it.

Charlie Kirk was a work-in-progress. He might have been less of a Zionist shill than in the past, but AntiFa hated him just the same, as they hate all Nationalists, and Marxist professors at least at Arizona State University called him a "White Nationalist," which is absurd.

Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs might have been raised in traditional Latter-Day Saint homes, but they had other lifestyles in mind, and it is clear from the engraved brass found with the rifle that this was clearly Leftist in motivation. The idea that MAGA was involved is just as dumb as Candace Owens' theory that it was the Mossad.

Of course, unless some neurotic Jew kills Robinson before his trial, and Twiggs before he can testify, we will know much more as the trial progresses as more evidence is released.

Contrary to popular belief, Jack Ruby had no mob connections. He was simply a sleazy nightclub owner who barely turned a profit selling watery drinks in a downtown bar. Contrary to popular belief, the burlesque club had no nudity. Jack Ruby lived in a dingy flat with a male roommate who testifed to the Warren Commission that they were not homosexuals.

Mr. Ruby was walking by the police station late Sunday morning to transfer some money at the Western Union office at Main St. and Pearl to one of his waitresses who was out of town with a minor emergency. The garage door of Dallas Police Department was only about 400 feet West from Western Union as Oswald walked to it back to his car. The Dallas PD made the mistake of notifying the press that Lee Harvey Oswald would be transferred to the nearby main jail near that time, and Ruby saw the buzz and snuck into the basement parking garage while the lone police officer guarding the Northern door was assisting the police transfer vehicle that was proceeding to back in. A big armored car "decoy" was blocking the South ramp entrance on Commerce St.

Ruby was wearing a suit coat and hat on the Sunday morning and fit in with the press clamoring around. Ruby did not have to wait long. Oswald, led by Captain Fritz, and handcuffed to homicide detective James Leavelle, immediately arrived by the elevator to the basement. Jack Ruby saw Oswald's trademark smirk and immediately Ruby pulled his .38 Colt Cobra snubbie revolver that he carried in his jpocket whenever he carried cash. Ruby almost certainly never intended to kill anybody earlier that day.

VIDEO 2

We already have seen a triggered Jew freak out at the Charlie Kirk event at UVU, and after the shooting tell people that he was the shooter and to kill him. This elderly man was a Leftist activist dirtbag not above getting himself arrested, who said later that he hoped that the real Kirk shooter would have more time to get away after the shooting.

Charlie Kirk probably triggered a lot of Leftist Jews. Saint Kennedy, not so much. However, I think it is absurd that Israel killed either Kennedy or Kirk. There is not a shred of evidence for that.

[Wetzelrad]

I think there is indeed a tendency for folks who are skeptical of many things coming from the government or the establishment towards what I call Epistemolocial Nihilism ─ or it other words, "a theory of knowledge based on the total rejection of established laws and institutions."

So everything has to be a lie. Infinite hambone conspiracy-theory.

I could not agree more. Exemplary of this, and I am again picking too much on her, is when Candace Owens said, "I'm not a Flat Earther. I'm not a Round Earther. Actually what I am is I am somebody who has left the cult of science."

It is easy to imagine an alternate timeline in which she rejected such thoughts, or at least kept them private, in order to better establish her credibility and to have a firm foundation on which to question other matters. Instead her foundation is an indefinite shape -- possibly a sphere, possibly a disc, possibly something else. How can we begin to discuss the world with someone who entertains doubts about its basic composition?

As for JFK, I am far too much out of my depth to respond to all the deeper minutiae of that so I will not try, but I thank you for the thoughtful post.

[borjastick]

A few comments regarding the lengthy post by Scott.

There's plenty of evidence to feel fairly certain that Oswald did not act alone. He may not have known he was acting in consort but I am of the opinion he did. Apart from other things he would have to have been a brilliant shot and very lucky to have got those shots on target and secondly I met a man in the far east who told me he was in the motorcycle Police escort and he and his colleagues were absolutely sure there was another shooter.

As for the Kirk shooter disassembling his rifle before jumping off the building to make good his escape, complete tosh. Anyone who knows anything about bolt action rifles and shooting knows this is crap.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
VIDEOS, names and other details ADDED.

For the most part the only information on the Charlie Kirk shooting that has been released is some campus surveillance video that was used successfully to smoke out the killer ─ whose parents recognized him ─ and the charging documents, which presents a damning case.

WRONG! / DECEPTION!
The family friend /pastor / ex-cop [retired deputy Mike Mitchell] suggested to the family it looked Tyler so they were pressurised into agreeing he should ”give himself up” in the belief that by doing so he would be eliminated from enquiries WITHOUT a SWAT team arriving and doing their thing:

“either you turn yourself in and everything is peaceable, or the SWAT team could come in here and arrest you and things could get crazy.”
~ retired deputy / pastor / family ‘friend’ (?) Mike Mitchell

There is zero evidence to suggest Israeli involvement

WRONG! / DECEPTION! There is plenty of evidence.
With more coming in.
Including numerous registered google searches from Israel PRIOR to the execution, looking up ‘Tyler Robinson’, Deidre Amaro (the new surgeon), the hospital Kirk was taken to, etc.



Zionists working for the Jew-only-lebensraum-land-theft definitely ARE implicated plus they are THE ONLY ONES with a clear motive and a benefit.

Charlie Kirk may have been less of a shill for Zionism

WRONG! / DECEPTION!
Kirk D E F I N I T E L Y WAS “less of a shill for Zionism”. There is no doubt about that. Absolutely no doubt at all. Scott, you are repeating clear falsehoods. This falsity/deception — suggesting that there is any doubt about Kirk refusing to continue shilling for the jew-only state in occupied Palestine Zionists — is a rather obvious example of an ignorant or dishonest approach to the public execution. Which is it in your case, Scott?
Zionist jewish donors had made Kirk a very rich man …and they expected their ‘pound of flesh’ for all those shekels.

…since the October 7, 2023 IDF war in Gaza.

WRONG! / DECEPTION! The Oct 7th stand-down order was exposed by Charlie Kirk. He recognised and publicly exposed the deception.



And it was NEVER a “war”. C’mon!
The most technologically advanced army in the world against a defenceless, besieged people with no navy, airforce or army and home-made weaponry is a “war” to you?
It can only be described as ‘war’ by people who are either gullible dupes obediently repeating what they are told or people promoting the zionist genocide.
Mass-murdering and maiming hundreds of thousands of civilians, sniping children with head shots, completely destroying all of the habitat and infrastructure of north Gaza can not be described as a ‘war’ …unless you are supporting the lebensraum land-theft.

So everything has to be a lie. Infinite hambone ’conspiracy-theory’.

Oh dear! Really? Still using the discredited jargon created to protect the perpetrators of the JFK assassination!?

The simplest answer ─ in this case the Lone Gunman theory ─ is the most probable simply because to get anything else requires a lot of hand-waiving and imaginings that are simply not part of the known evidence.

That’s a lot of hand-waving your doing here, Scott.

When I first saw the November 22, 1963 Zapruder film, I too thought that there must have been two shooters at Dealey Plaza. …but that does not mean that the Warren Commission Report was a "rush to judgement," let alone a coverup.

Jeez! Here we go.
All the film — including the Zapruder film — was confiscated and edited BEFORE it was made public. The filmed ‘kill shot’ in the Zapruder footage was heavily edited before that was ever released. The agent who was called in immediately to view and make stills of each frame has admitted that.
Scott, you know this as I told you and showed you the filmed interview. His name is Dino Brugioni.
SUMMARY: Relying on the Zapruder film is relying on tampered evidence.

Also, contrary to what TV presenter Gerald Rivera says, most of the scores of witnesses interviewed who were at Dealey Plaza said that the shot came from the Texas School Book Depository Building upper floor where Oswald's sniper's nest was found.

WRONG! / Yet another clear DECEPTION!
Most said it came from what has gone down in history as ‘the grassy knoll’.
There's even photos of cops and people running there / going there.





About 40 witnesses to the assassination of Jack Kennedy said they either heard gunshots from the infamous grassy knoll in the northwest corner of Dealey Plaza, or to have seen smoke or smelled gunpowder in that area.
http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assass ... -witnesses

Back to Chalrie Kirk.
No we don't have a full police report yet and likely won't get one until the trial.
We do not have the autopsy report yet. We don't even have a basic ballistics report yet.
They did not release the portion of the Utah Valley University surveillance video that shows the actual shooting, just the getaway, and some home doorbell camera footage of Mr. Robinson casing the neighborhood and walking with a limp from the rifle stuffed down his Right pant leg.

Tyler Robinson left the screwdriver that he used to reassemble the rifle on the roof and it had his DNA on it. He stashed the assembled rifle wrapped in a towel in a copse of trees just off campus when he was getting away but was not able to retrieve it later. Lots of DNA found too, and he suspected that they might find some of his prints on the rifle when he confessed to his "transitioning" boyfriend in texts and chats. Tyler's parents recognized him from the released photos and confronted him about it.

All of this has been debunked. All of it! The screwdriver, the disassembly, the alleged find in a “copse of trees”, the alleged chats and texts, his parents’ involvement in his alleged ‘confession’, all of it is bogus! All of it.
E.g. the rifle reassembly:

Charlie Kirk might have been less of a Zionist shill than in the past,

(sigh) Oh boy! back to this nonsense.

…it is clear from the engraved brass found with the rifle that this was clearly Leftist in motivation.

Yeah, yeah! Just keep believing and promoting the official story WITHOUT SEEING ANY EVIDENCE and after just saying there’s no ballistic report yet.
Scott, you are talking nonsense.
The rifle has been identified in the official story: it belonged to Tyler Robinson’s grandfather and is a Mauser 98 .30-06.
That would have taken Kirk’s head off. So OBVIOUSLY is NOT the actual weapon. Which makes the FBI narrative of: engraved casings, assembly/disassembly, screwdriver with DNA, etc., a nonsensical refuted narrative on just this detail alone.



Many ballistics experts have pointed out the ridiculously non-credible nature of this FBi claim.
E.g. this one:
https://www.hypefresh.com/rifle-disasse ... rder-case/

I don’t remember having seen a post with quite so many obvious falsehoods. Quite amazing.

However, I think it is absurd that Israel killed either Kennedy or Kirk. There is not a shred of evidence for that.

WRONG! / DECEPTION ! there is plenty of evidence for both. Your post is a quite “absurd” inversion of the actual reality here.