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

[Scott]

I don't understand the point that people are making that Tyler Robinson did not disassemble his rifle. No, he didn't take it apart after the shooting. He put it back together before the shooting ─ probably only took him a minute or two.

No, Tyler first scoped out the area in a red shirt and shorts early in the morning. Then, wearing pants and a dark shirt with a flag and an eagle on it before the Charlie Kirk event, he limped a ways down the neighborhood on people's doorbell cams with the rifle shoved down his Right (rear) pant leg (probably partially disassembled) and other parts either under the back of his shirt or in his backpack, when he went up to the roof. Student common areas were on the roof. Very easy.

Tyler quickly reassembled the rifle when he got to the roof but dropped or forgot his screwdriver. After he took the shot, he did not have time to disassemble the rifle again and ran away with it wrapped in a dark towel (a little less than ideal but at least he was not walking with a limp). He had to stash the rifle (assembled) in some trees off campus in order to get away, and he was not able to recover it later that day despite it having possible fingerprints (and DNA) on it.

I'm seeing a lot of Epistemological Nihilism here. I coined that term years ago, btw.

LHO was a dyslexic misfit who had his Russian-born wife take "Resume" photos (plural) of himself with an Italian Carcaro WWII military rifle and a Smith & Wesson revolver and some Communist literature (for different hostile factions, LOL) at their Oak Cliff neighborhood apartment in Dallas on Neely Street ─ which still exists today, not far from his future boarding house on Beckley St. (two miles from Dealey Plaza and now a museum) and not far from the location where Officer Tippit was shot at 10th and Patton, or the Texas Theater on Jefferson Avenue (where Oswald was captured after sneaking in without paying after shooting Tippit).

Literally no radical groups were interested in hiring Oswald, and in his "resume" photos he comes off as a complete nutter.

The FBI and the Dallas PD did not know that Lee Harvey Oswald had taken a rifle shot at General Ted Walker at his upscale Dallas home, which is today next to an LDS church. Walker was only slightly injured but there were no leads in the case. Walker was a retired Army general and a John Bircher who was against Desegregation, and whom the Kennedies hated, and presumably so did Oswald. The bullet of the future "Patsy," as he called himself later, hit the window pane and deflected just enough to spare Gen. Walker's life. Marina Oswald knew about the Walker shooting, but since her estranged husband wanted to send her back to Russia, she was afraid to talk to the police and her English was rather marginal.

The FBI was not interested in Oswald at all except that as a former defector, they wanted his address on file and Agent James Hosty, who was more interested in investigating Klansmen than cringey Communists, did make one visit to Mrs. Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas (ten miles from Dealey Plaza) where Marina was living, to get a current address on Oswald, which prompted a histrionic complaint from Oswald to the FBI, a file which the bureau "lost" after the JFK shooting and Director Hoover started asking questions.

The Dallas PD and the FBI had no leads on the Walker shooting, and they were never interested in Oswald. Later they discovered that Oswald was planning on defecting to Cuba (where the real revolution supposedly was) and had applied for visas at the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in late September, 1963. The CIA surveilled the embassies but otherwise they were not interested in Oswald either.

The shots that Oswald took are simply not that remarkable. Oswald was an ex-Marine and a decent shot. Any soldier who could not hit a target the size of a head at less than 100 meters (where you sight your rifle in at) in three tries, I frankly would not want to serve with.

The Charlie Kirk shot was pretty basic for a deer hunter too. The media reported 200 yards at UVU but it was actually 128 Meters or 420 feet (140 yards).

The farthest Kennedy shot was the last one at 81 meters (266 feet), and it was the easiest since it was a straight line with the car, so no right-angle deflection needed, and with the car almost stopped, plus less foliage in the way.

Here is a short hunting video explaining Maximum Point Blank Range. That means meat-on-the-table at less than 300 Meters without a lot of fuss. You just have to sight your high-powered rifle in so that it hits maybe 3 inches high at 100 meters.

[Wetzelrad]

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.

This is exactly what I am trying to caution against. To say that things are bogus based on little more than speculation is to walk out onto a shaky tree limb. Let me respond to some of these.

The screwdriver and the DNA match retrieved from it is information made public by FBI Director Kash Patel. There is no evidence that refutes what he said. The new theory is that since only Patel mentioned it, the screwdriver allegation is another fake, and Patel was just running his mouth. This is wild speculation. Utah's case against Robinson is built on numerous other physical evidence matched to Robinson's DNA, including the rifle, the towel, the fired casing, and the unfired casings, so this screwdriver is not needed to prove their case.

As for assembly or disassembly, it's largely immaterial because that narrative doesn't come from law enforcement. All of that is just social media chatter. And needless to say, a video about disassembling the rifle does not necessarily have any application to Scott's claim that the rifle was assembled on scene.

The rifle was found in what the charging document calls "a wooded area". I'm not sure what your issue with this is. Some people have characterized it as a "forest", which would be a poor description, but that's immaterial.

The chats and texts have been criticized for all kinds of reasons, but none of those reasons have much bite. One of the top reasons given for their being fake was that Robinson's word choices seemed unlikely for his background. The word "vehicle" in the messages struck some as unbelievable, but then Robinson was found to have used the same word "vehicle" in bodycam footage. It is also just a matter of time before these messages are fully authenticated in court, at which point the alleged conspiracy will have to widen to include the cell companies and app companies.

The charging document, based on interviews with Robinson's parents, has them first suspecting Robinson, then trying to convince Robinson to turn himself in, only succeeding after involving a family friend. I guess it's possible that this is a totally fictitious narrative, but so far I have seen nothing that indicates that, and none of the involved parties have come out to say they are being misrepresented, which they obviously would if they believe in Robinson's innocence.

One new line of evidence being pursued is this pre-shooting Google Trends data. I think this is probably completely phoney based on the fact that the supposed search data appears and disappears at random, as shown by the original person who popularized it. It is also shown to happen for other countries. Probably it is a programming bug or an artifact with how Google presents the data. Google Trends was not built to be used this way.

[Stubble]

Is there any picture of the ammunition in the rifle floating around?

I want to see the projectile.

The only projectile I can think of that would have created the 8-10" expansion cavity, caught a vertebra and shot down his spine (blowing 6 of them out) is the 165gr Sierra HPBT Game King.

Anything else would have blown straight through. Ballistic Tip, FMJ, you name it. At 140 yards it still had enough energy to lift a truck.

[Scott]

None of that has been released yet and probably won't be until the trial. Just because the police and DA have not dumped the evidence in our lap does not mean that there is a not a mountain of it.

The Robinson parents ─ who will likely be called to testify ─ have probably lawyered up and are not talking to the media.

Candace Owens is an incredible grifter who is spreading all sorts of disinformation at this point.

Here is an important video from an actual mortician, who explains how the death protocols work, death certificates, autopsies, etc.

VIDEO1

[Wahrheitssucher]

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.

This is exactly what I am trying to caution against. To say that things are bogus based on little more than speculation is to walk out onto a shaky tree limb.

But it is definitely NOT being disbelieved based on mere “speculation”.
It appears you haven’t actually checked and looked into some of this in sufficient detail, Wetzelrad.
I.e. you appear to me to be behaving on this issue like the person with the user-name of ‘confusedjew’.

It also appears you just don’t like people questioning and debunking the official narrative.
An attitude and approach I find quite peculiar for someone who has seen through the mass of ‘official’ lies and misinformation regarding WW2 and the alleged mass-murder of 6 million jews.

THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE:
Kirk was supposedly struck by a single .30-06 round from a bolt-action Mauser 98 rifle (gifted to Robinson by his grandfather) fired from the roof of the Losee Center building, about 142 yards away.

DEBUNKED:
That ALONE defies basic physics.
Didn’t you watch the video I provided DEBUNKING that claim and PROVING it is BOGUS based on empirical evidence?
I can only assume you didn’t watch it as there is absolutely no way any sane person can argue against it.
As I regard you as a sane person, this means you either are:
a.) ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit what you want to believe
OR for some reason you also are
b.) deceiving in the attempt to keep people believing a bogus, debunked, ridiculous, ‘official’ narrative.
If a mauser 98 .30 06 had been fired from that distance and had hit Kirk in the neck it not only would definitely have left an exit wound, but it would have destroyed his neck.
That is a ballistic fact!
It is NOT “speculation”.
Suggesting it is speculation is either ignorance or deliberate deception! There’s no other option.

Let me respond to some of these.
The screwdriver and the DNA match retrieved from it is information made public by FBI Director Kash Patel. There is no evidence that refutes what he said. The new theory is that since only Patel mentioned it, the screwdriver allegation is another fake, and Patel was just running his mouth. This is wild speculation. Utah's case against Robinson is built on numerous other physical evidence matched to Robinson's DNA, including the rifle, the towel, the fired casing, and the unfired casings, so this screwdriver is not needed to prove their case.

As for assembly or disassembly, it's largely immaterial because that narrative doesn't come from law enforcement. All of that is just social media chatter. And needless to say, a video about disassembling the rifle does not necessarily have any application to Scott's claim that the rifle was assembled on scene.

EXPLANATION:
If the claimed rifle could not have caused the wound we all saw, then ALL of those are debunked. It makes it all planted ‘evidence’ to incriminate a ‘patsy’.
Do you agree?

The rifle was found in what the charging document calls "a wooded area".
I'm not sure what your issue with this is. Some people have characterized it as a "forest", which would be a poor description, but that's immaterial.

Eye-witness accounts of residents have refuted that ‘official’ statement. That’s what the issue is.
We have to either believe: i.) the ‘official’ narrative or ii.) reports from numerous residents and eye-witnesses.

The chats and texts have been criticized for all kinds of reasons, but none of those reasons have much bite.

That is an opinion.
One that taken together with your other arguments in defence of the official narrative I believe just shows naive gullibility or an intent to deceive. Again, sorry but as I see it, those are the only two options. In my opinion and many others they are very obviously fake for numerous logical reasons (i.e. not ‘speculation’).

The charging document, based on interviews with Robinson's parents, has them first suspecting Robinson, then trying to convince Robinson to turn himself in, only succeeding after involving a family friend. I guess it's possible that this is a totally fictitious narrative, but so far I have seen nothing that indicates that, and none of the involved parties have come out to say they are being misrepresented, which they obviously would if they believe in Robinson's innocence.

That also is apparently incorrect! They have said they are being misrepresented. They say they have been told not to say anything to media, presumably not before the trial . But apparently they have spoken to close friends and family who have said that they definitely DO deny the official story.
We, as distant viewers, have no way of knowing with certainty. We have to rely on 2nd hand accounts. But we don’t get the option to deny there are accounts refuting the official narrative. If we do, then that is dishonest denial.

Plus Tyler definitely has officially denied his guilt. He did it in court. Which refutes the official narrative. Corroborating the 2nd hand accounts that his parents also don’t believe he did it, which also refutes the ‘official’ narrative. And again, that is NOT based on ‘speculation’. Do you agree?

Taken together this shows you are just flat out denying any refutation, presumably because for some reason you don’t want to believe your governmental institutions lie to you (or, you yourself are deceiving).
Why any American would implicitly believe official narratives after their lies, concealment and tampering with evidence to conceal murder of American citizens at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Dealey Plaza, WTC7, the Pentagon, twin towers, etc., etc., beats me.

One new line of evidence being pursued is this pre-shooting Google Trends data. I think this is probably completely phoney based on the fact that the supposed search data appears and disappears at random, as shown by the original person who popularized it. It is also shown to happen for other countries. Probably it is a programming bug or an artifact with how Google presents the data. Google Trends was not built to be used this way.

Hmmm? Well, …You appear to me to be ironically doing what you started by accusing others of doing: viz. just disputing evidence either because you don’t understand it or don’t want to believe it, in order to maintain belief in something.
Ermmm… again just like ‘confusedjew’ used to do.

[HansHill]

To be fair to Wetzelrad, i did ask you:

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

And you replied

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

That is,

Evidence was requested, and not forthcoming.

[Stubble]

None of that has been released yet and probably won't be until the trial. Just because the police and DA have not dumped the evidence in our lap does not mean that there is a not a mountain of it.

The Robinson parents ─ who will likely be called to testify ─ have probably lawyered up and are not talking to the media.

Candace Owens is an incredible grifter who is spreading all sorts of disinformation at this point.

Here is an important video from an actual mortician, who explains how the death protocols work, death certificates, autopsies, etc.

VIDEO1

The picture of the rifle is floating around. There could have been a release of a picture of the engraved bullets I missed.

They released an image of the 'anti ice' sharpied bullet from the dallas shooting.

/shrug

My description of the post-mortem comes from tpusa (and the video, that expansion cavity was huge), so, can be taken with a grain of salt.

[Wetzelrad]

Didn’t you watch the video I provided DEBUNKING that claim and PROVING it is BOGUS based on empirical evidence?

No, I didn't watch the video. I've chosen not to say anything about the shooting itself for a number of reasons, especially my own ignorance about such things, but since you deem it of great importance I will respond now.

THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE:
Kirk was supposedly struck by a single .30-06 round from a bolt-action Mauser 98 rifle (gifted to Robinson by his grandfather) fired from the roof of the Losee Center building, about 142 yards away.

Well, that's not quite it. We know he was shot by a .30-06 rifle, but the type of ammunition has not been given. I have been entertaining the idea that a special or incorrect type of round was used in the rifle, a claim suggested by others and so far unrebutted. (Admittedly this possibility seems less likely over time since law enforcement hasn't offered it.)

DEBUNKED:
That ALONE defies basic physics.

It doesn't. For me it was enough just to hear different hunters chime in with their experiences of bullets not always exiting their targets, not always behaving predictably, to feel comfortable that what is alleged is physically possible.

I have also seen numerous videos of bullets hitting targets sideways, meaning they are tumbling in flight, which in the case of the Kirk shooting would lower the bullet's velocity. This seems like another plausible explanation for the wound.

But even if we put aside some of the unconventional theories, I just don't believe we have sufficient information to make a conclusive technical proof like you are claiming. Having now watched the video, I'm unimpressed. Like every other video of this type, it was made with the intent to prove how powerful .30-06 is, not to test if the shooting was possible. They did not even try to replicate the shooting in its details, nor did they experiment with anything that could falsify their theory, like alternate ammo. I'm fed up with these repetitive explanations. I would still consider reading or watching a debate if some well-informed people on both sides wanted to take it seriously.

EXPLANATION:
If the claimed rifle could not have caused the wound we all saw, then ALL of those are debunked. It makes it all planted ‘evidence’ to incriminate a ‘patsy’.
Do you agree?

I didn't know that this was the angle you were taking. I do agree at least partially with the logic. If the shooting was technically impossible then it would cast doubt on a lot of other evidence. However, this builds a sort of house of cards in which the derivative claims depend on the core claim. I again say you are venturing out on shaky ground.

Eye-witness accounts of residents have refuted that ‘official’ statement. That’s what the issue is.
We have to either believe: i.) the ‘official’ narrative or ii.) reports from numerous residents and eye-witnesses.

I'm unfamiliar with these accounts. Robinson leaving the rifle there seems to be consistent with the fact that he brought it with him off the roof but did not keep it in his possession, hence the attempt to return and collect it later. Also corroborated in the text messages. Are the eyewitnesses better evidence?

That also is apparently incorrect! They have said they are being misrepresented. They say they have been told not to say anything to media, presumably not before the trial . But apparently they have spoken to close friends and family who have said that they definitely DO deny the official story.
We, as distant viewers, have no way of knowing with certainty. We have to rely on 2nd hand accounts. But we don’t get the option to deny there are accounts refuting the official narrative. If we do, then that is dishonest denial.

Big if true. Doubtful because it should be huge news and the number one topic on social media.

If they believe in Robinson's innocence, they would all be very foolish to keep their mouths shut now. It is not against the law to defend him in the public sphere, and he stands a much better chance of winning his case if he gets the public on his side. He could get millions in crowdfunding overnight.

Plus Tyler definitely has officially denied his guilt. He did it in court. Which refutes the official narrative. Corroborating the 2nd hand accounts that his parents also don’t believe he did it, which also refutes the ‘official’ narrative. And again, that is NOT based on ‘speculation’. Do you agree?

He predictably made a plea of not guilty. He has not said that he has been framed or anything else that would be obvious to him now if it were true.

Hmmm? Well, …You appear to me to be ironically doing what you started by accusing others of doing: viz. just disputing evidence either because you don’t understand it or don’t want to believe it, in order to maintain belief in something.

No, actually it's proven that the people who are using this information do not understand it. When someone asked Sam Parker why the Google Trends were different for him, he was told to try again on another device. This is nonsense. Either the data exists or it doesn't. When it's pointed out that the same trick can be played with countries other than Israel and events other than the assassination, Parker has not responded. Baron Coleman at least admits the trick can be played with other topics, because he uses it with a bunch of unrelated conspiracies.

This entire line of analysis also ignores the most obvious innocent explanations, like that we live in a world of AI where millions of useless and meaningless search queries are made every day. If any of the Trends data is real, it would have to be shown that it is incompatible with normal searches made by humans and AI.

With this, I will probably stop engaging because I don't think anything productive will come from this now. I'm more interested in forgery accusations and where they end up.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Didn’t you watch the video I provided DEBUNKING that claim and PROVING it is BOGUS based on empirical evidence?

No, I didn't watch the video.

Thanks for the honest answer. But… Then how can you fairly say: “ I'm more interested in forgery accusations and where they end up.” You’ve just proven that you aren’t actually interested in refuting evidence when it is offered to you. You only watched it after being forced to, to restore some credibility for the position you have chosen.

THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE:
Kirk was supposedly struck by a single .30-06 round from a bolt-action Mauser 98 rifle (gifted to Robinson by his grandfather) fired from the roof of the Losee Center building, about 142 yards away.

Well, that's not quite it. We know he was shot by a .30-06 rifle, but the type of ammunition has not been given. I have been entertaining the idea that a special or incorrect type of round was used in the rifle, a claim suggested by others and so far unrebutted. (Admittedly this possibility seems less likely over time since law enforcement hasn't offered it.)

DEBUNKED:
That ALONE defies basic physics.

It doesn't. For me it was enough just to hear different hunters chime in with their experiences of bullets not always exiting their targets, not always behaving predictably, to feel comfortable that what is alleged is physically possible.

Well, if expert opinion is “not enough” for you, don’t you see you can not fairly claim: “I'm more interested in forgery accusations and where they end up”?
Because aren’t you then doing exactly what you are highlighting and warning against, viz. disbelieving evidence because it does not fit i.) your current understanding + ii.) what you want to believe? I.e. a subconscious confirmation bias?

THE BASIC FACTS
The irrefutable evidence that we currently have is the neck wound captured on camera from numerous angles.
The official narrative has a claimed murder weapon plus an accused person acting from a claimed position.

The question any honest, unbiased investigation has to ask is: “Can a bullet of any kind shot from a Mauser 98 .30 06 from the alleged position cause such an entry wound”?
The expert opinion is in the negative! If you have credible expert opinion refuting that, you haven’t yet shown it.

I have also seen numerous videos of bullets hitting targets sideways, meaning they are tumbling in flight, which in the case of the Kirk shooting would lower the bullet's velocity. This seems like another plausible explanation for the wound.

Please share it.

But even if we put aside some of the unconventional theories, I just don't believe we have sufficient information to make a conclusive technical proof like you are claiming. Having now watched the video, I'm unimpressed. Like every other video of this type, it was made with the intent to prove how powerful .30-06 is, not to test if the shooting was possible.
They did not even try to replicate the shooting in its details…

What details do you think they did they not replicate? Please explain.

…nor did they experiment with anything that could falsify their theory, like alternate ammo.

As you have conceded (and respect to you for that) the presented evidence from those supplying the ‘official’ narrative, suggests the bullets found and used were normal.
So IF it is a normal round for a Mauser 98 .30 06, then the video I linked to DEFINITELY DOES “test if the shooting was possible”.
So… Again I respectfully suggest that what you are doing is precisely what you warned against: viz. dismissing actual evidence as false merely because you don’t like the obvious conclusion.
I.e. it is you who are dismissing the actual evidence and inventing other less likely and less credible scenarios in order to rescue the discredited ‘official’ narrative.

I'm fed up with these repetitive explanations. I would still consider reading or watching a debate if some well-informed people on both sides wanted to take it seriously.

EXPLANATION:
If the claimed rifle could not have caused the wound we all saw, then ALL of those are debunked. It makes it all planted ‘evidence’ to incriminate a ‘patsy’.
Do you agree?

I didn't know that this was the angle you were taking. I do agree at least partially with the logic. If the shooting was technically impossible then it would cast doubt on a lot of other evidence.

Hunh!? It would ‘only ‘cast doubt’ in your mind?

However, this builds a sort of house of cards in which the derivative claims depend on the core claim. I again say you are venturing out on shaky ground.

The known wound on Kirk’s neck and the known ballistics of the known rifle claimed are NOT ‘shaky ground, Wetzelrad. They are the most solid evidence in the actual murder investigation.

Eye-witness accounts of residents have refuted that ‘official’ statement. That’s what the issue is.
We have to either believe: i.) the ‘official’ narrative or ii.) reports from numerous residents and eye-witnesses.

I'm unfamiliar with these accounts. Robinson leaving the rifle there seems to be consistent with the fact that he brought it with him off the roof but did not keep it in his possession, hence the attempt to return and collect it later. Also corroborated in the text messages. Are the eyewitnesses better evidence?

That also is apparently incorrect! They have said they are being misrepresented. They say they have been told not to say anything to media, presumably not before the trial . But apparently they have spoken to close friends and family who have said that they definitely DO deny the official story.
We, as distant viewers, have no way of knowing with certainty. We have to rely on 2nd hand accounts. But we don’t get the option to deny there are accounts refuting the official narrative. If we do, then that is dishonest denial.

Big if true. Doubtful because it should be huge news and the number one topic on social media.

Your argument then is because you haven’t seen/read this therefore it’s not credible? Isn’t that also precisely the reaction to refuting evidence that you are warning against?

If they believe in Robinson's innocence, they would all be very foolish to keep their mouths shut now. It is not against the law to defend him in the public sphere, and he stands a much better chance of winning his case if he gets the public on his side. He could get millions in crowdfunding overnight.

Plus Tyler definitely has officially denied his guilt. He did it in court. Which refutes the official narrative. Corroborating the 2nd hand accounts that his parents also don’t believe he did it, which also refutes the ‘official’ narrative. And again, that is NOT based on ‘speculation’. Do you agree?

He predictably made a plea of not guilty. He has not said that he has been framed or anything else that would be obvious to him now if it were true.

He hasn’t had a chance to say anything at all publicly. You are again doing exactly what you warned against. You are dismissing evidence if it doesn’t fit your preconceived position.

Hmmm? Well, …You appear to me to be ironically doing what you started by accusing others of doing: viz. just disputing evidence either because you don’t understand it or don’t want to believe it, in order to maintain belief in something.

No, actually it's proven that the people who are using this information do not understand it. When someone asked Sam Parker why the Google Trends were different for him, he was told to try again on another device. This is nonsense. Either the data exists or it doesn't. When it's pointed out that the same trick can be played with countries other than Israel and events other than the assassination, Parker has not responded. Baron Coleman at least admits the trick can be played with other topics, because he uses it with a bunch of unrelated conspiracies.

This entire line of analysis also ignores the most obvious innocent explanations, like that we live in a world of AI where millions of useless and meaningless search queries are made every day. If any of the Trends data is real, it would have to be shown that it is incompatible with normal searches made by humans and AI.

With this, I will probably stop engaging because I don't think anything productive will come from this now. I'm more interested in forgery accusations and where they end up.

I respectfully suggest that is the opposite of what you are doing. For some reason you have accepted the official narrative and you reject all evidence that refutes it sometimes without even seeing it, and then with illogical reasons once you have.

[Wahrheitssucher]

To be fair to Wetzelrad, i did ask you:

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

And you replied

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

That is, Evidence was requested, and not forthcoming.

Yes, you asked for any conclusive evidence that Kirk’s public murder was orchestrated by the zionist ethno-state illegally occupying and mass-murdering and maiming hundreds of thousands of captive civilians in Gaza with American weaponry and permission.

I stand by my former answer. My reply to that question remains unchanged.

[Scott]

Just a quick point about the Charlie Kirk rifle, I don't think a photo of the rifle was officially released by the authorities, just from the media such as the New York Times. We did get the now-familiar NYT photo of the rifle found in the trees behind some houses just off of campus, and I have seen photos where the investigators taped off that area, which is just across the street from the Losee center.

The New York Times photo shows a sporterized high-powered rifle with a bolt action and a synthetic stock and an expensive optical scope. In his tweets or texts, Tyler Robinson said that his Grandpa's deer rifle had an expensive scope, 2,000 USD If I remember correctly. IMAGE

This is consistent with a "sporterized" modification of a Mauser G98 or K98k, with a new barrel for caliber .30-06 instead of the original "8x57mm IS" German round used in WWII (which has a bullet diameter of 8.2mm or 0.324 inches).

The "IS" designation, also mistaken for jS, means Infanterie Spitzer (infantry Spitzgeschoss or pointed-bullet).

The older designation of 7.92x57mm (0.312 inch bore) is used too, although that applies to other Mausers besides the wartime versions.

There are also "Spanish" Mausers in 7x57mm (0.285 inch bore) which are highly regarded by hunters and nearly identical to the British .275 Rigby (actually .284 inch bore vs. the .275 inch land diameter) a caliber that has sometimes historically been used to take large and dangerous African game, but much less powerful than either the venerable 8MM Mauser or the supernumerary .30-06 Springfield.

So there are quite a lot of details for "Mauser" rifles, and details that have not been officially explained to us yet regarding this Charlie Kirk case.

We are told simply that it was a 98 Mauser action in .30-06 caliber ─ which means a barrel swap, probably a new barrel. We do not know the length of the barrel. The most common length for a sporterized bolt-action in .30-06 is 22 inches, or sometimes 24 inches.

G98 Mausers, mostly from WW1 Germany, had 29.1 inch barrels (740 mm).
K98k Mausers, the majority from WW2 Germany, had 23.6 inch barrels (600 mm).
A 1903 US Springfield in .30-06 from WW1 has a barrel length of 24 inches (610 mm).
A Model 1917 US Enfield from WW1 has a barrel length of 26 inches (610 mm).

All of the above rifles are loaded from the top with individudal rounds or with 5-round disposable "stripper clips," carried in pouches or bandoliers, clips that are either removed by hand or ejected when the bolt is closed.

Some Bolshie states now have laws limiting hunting rifle magazine capacity to 3-rounds, so this might be a feature on a "sporterized" rifle magazine.

The M1 Garand .30-06 caliber from WW2 is an 8-round semi-automatic, and has a barrel length of 24 inches (610 mm). It uses a disposable ejecting 8-round en bloc (French for on-bloc) clip that loads from the top into the rifle magazine, and the clips are carried in ammunition pouches or bandoliers. The en-bloc clip ejects from the top of the M1 Garand rifle after the last round is fired.

The 6.5×52mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald (LINK) who could not afford a surplus mail order M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, bolt-action Mauser, or US WW1 rifle, used a 6-round en-bloc clip that went into the rifle's magazine from the top and was ejected from the bottom after the last round was exhausted.

" Oswald purchased the rifle (model not given in the [1963 American Rifleman] advertisement), complete with an attached new 4x telescopic sight, for $19.95 (equivalent to $200 in 2024) plus $1.50 shipping. (The rifle alone – without the scope – was priced at $12.78.) Like the handgun, this was also shipped to Oswald at his post office box in Dallas, also on March 20, [1963]. [fn10] " [Ibid.]

Lee Harvey Oswald simply could not have afforded more than twenty bucks for a M1 Garand or something else that would have cost five times as much as the Carcano (and over ten times more still, if adjusted for today).

The point that I am getting to here is that many have tried to cast doubt on the JFK investigation by noting that police described the rifle that they found on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building as a "MAUSER," whereas the Warren Commission concluded that this was in error and it was a WW2 surplus Italian 6.5mm Carcano ─ the one that Oswald purchased shipped to his Post Office Box by mail order.

" About half an hour after the assassination of President Kennedy, a floor-by-floor search of the Texas School Book Depository Building was commenced by Dallas police, joined by sheriff's deputies. [fn29] The rifle was found by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman and Officer Gene Boone among cartons on the sixth floor. [fn30][fn31] " [Ibid.] [...]

" Initially misidentified as being a German-made Mauser rifle, the Dallas police, upon examination in their lab, determined it to be an Italian-made Carcano. The Warren Commission concluded that the initial identification of the rifle as a Mauser was in error. [fn39] The House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated claims from researchers that the rifle in fact was a Mauser. The Committee compared photos taken by the Dallas police of the rifle in place, a news film of the rifle being recovered, news photos of the rifle being carried from the Depository, numerous news photos and films of the rifle being carried through the halls of the Dallas police headquarters, as well as photos later taken by the FBI and the Dallas police, and compared them to the Carcano rifle held at the National Archives. They concluded the rifle depicted in the photos and films was the same rifle held in the Archives and therefore was the Carcano and not a Mauser. [fn40] " [Ibid.]

The Sixth-Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza is an excellent resource on all things JFK assassination. They have a collection of 2,500 oral history interviews of anybody present at Dealey Plaza or involved with the case, hoping to get them recorded and cataloged before the individuals passed on.

The officers debunked in a documented interview their own Mauser rifle claim, i.e., refuting that the rifle they found at the Sixth Floor of the TSBD building could not have been the one that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased because they had originally called it a "Mauser."

The detectives who found the rifle said that they did not exactly know that it was a Mannlicher-Carcano when they called it a Mauser for the press; what they said they meant was that it was a "Mauser" (i.e., bolt-action). At the time, all bolt-actions ─ other than Springfields or Enfields ─ were called "Mausers" because they had a Mauser-style bolt action.

I own a mint-condition German Mauser K98k, with proof marks from 1943. It was hardly fired because I bought it from an arsenal in the former Yugoslavia where it was stamped with a Communist crest in 1944 and packed in cosmoline grease for decades during the Cold War until I purchased it circa 1990. It was one used for military storage and was not sporterized as Americans ofter did after the war, which I consider to be an act of vandalism.

Anyway, I think that the Charlie Kirk rifle probably looks like the New York Times picture, and in any case, I don't think the Charlie Kirk rifle looks like this (LINK).

[borjastick]

Scott you are getting very deep into bullshit and bollocks about rifles. It is clear to me, an experience shooter of many calibres and types of rifle and pistol and with a military background, that you do not know what you are talking about.

On the matter of Oswald it matters not at all what type of rifle he was or was not using he simply could not have fired those rounds accurately in the time and with such precision.

As for the endless bollocks spoken about the disassembly of the CK shooter's rifle. Bolt action rifles cannot, I repeat, cannot be taken apart at will. An over and under shotgun is made up of three parts; barrel, stock/receiver and forend. A bolt action rifle cannot be taken apart. You could possibly just maybe with luck and a following wind remove the scope but it would be difficult and be of little advantage to you. A scope is a precision piece of equipment mounted professionally so as to be in tune with the rifle and shooter. Once mounted the scope has to be zeroed which takes time and if that scope is then removed it all has to be done again. The barrel of a bolt action rifle cannot be removed. This isn't difficult.

The pictures of the CK shooter's rifle I saw, if true, suggest that he was either the world's best or luckiest shooter to be able to take that shot successfully.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Anyone wanting to understand as accurately as possible: 1. our shared history and 2.) the events that form the content of our msm news feeds, has to be wary of our shared human propensity for subconscious self-deception in order for certain psychological pay-offs.

So… The title of this topic-thread is important:
recognising and avoiding “the impulse” to prematurely and/or incorrectly “declare things as forgeries”

Just declaring something fake or fraudulent in order to buttress a belief-system definitely IS a human psychological trait.

But then so is the desire to create fake and fraudulent evidence to deceive and protect criminal activity from detection and punishment / repercussions.

AND the ability to deceive and create fake evidence has become ever-more sophisticated and difficult to detect. So that's why this is an important topic. The ability to create convincing and credible deceptions using fake and fraudulent ‘evidence’ is like a magician’s show — it relies on well understood tricks of both physical manipulation AND psychological suggestion.

So everyone has to check their own subconscious motives: ‘am I looking with a confirmation-bias for evidence of fraud in order to buttress my own belief-system whenever I come across evidence that contradicts it? Or am I looking at the evidence with honesty, objectivity and a willingness to follow the evidence whatever the conclusion it confirms?’


BOGUS AND FAKED EVIDENCE IN THE 1962 JFK MURDER / PUBLIC EXECUTION

Scott you are getting very deep into bullshit and bollocks about rifles. It is clear to me, an experience shooter of many calibres and types of rifle and pistol and with a military background, that you do not know what you are talking about.

On the matter of Lee Harvey Oswald, it matters not at all what type of rifle he was or was not using he simply could not have fired [ALL] those rounds…

After adding the word “all” I agree. (I.e. it IS possible that he could have fired some of them.)
After looking into it in detail many years ago I concluded Oswald fired none of them. Nor did he shoot Tippet. He was — as he himself said — the framed ‘patsy’.
If anyone is new to that murder in 1962 of an American President in broad-daylight in front of a public audience and the resultant, concealed coup d’etat that followed, YET doesn’t want to wade through all the reams of speculation, nonsense and deliberate red-herring false-trails I recommend this analysis by Michael Collins Piper:

https://ia902900.us.archive.org/23/item ... 005%29.pdf

And if anyone like Wetzelrad wasn’t interested enough to watch all the video evidence I previously provided in this thread here's (e.g. the Dino Bruglioni interview) here’s a short, reasonably accurate, well-summarised presentation of the deceptions in the JFK shooting (although ignore the info about an inserted street sign).



Summary:
someone from the book depository couldn't have fired that final, fatal shot simply because the ‘kill’ head-shot did not come from behind JFK, it came from slightly to the front and from the right of the motorcade (the area known now as “the grassy knoll”).
AND the Zapruder film proved that.
Which is why the CIA removed as many of the frames as they credibly could which showed it.
Scott knows this but for some reason won’t acknowledge it and instead repeats irrelevant info plus debunked bollox that relies on the tampered/edited footage.

Dino Brugioni stated that the Zapruder Film in the National Archives today, and available to the public, has been altered from the version of the film he saw and worked with on November 23–24. Specifically, the version of the Zapruder Film Brugioni recalls seeing had more than one frame of the fatal head shot to Kennedy with its resulting "spray" of brain matter that he referred to as a "white cloud", three or four feet above Kennedy's head.
The version of the Zapruder film available to the public depicts the fatal head shot on only one frame of the film, frame 313. Additionally, Brugioni was adamant that the set of briefing boards available to the public in the National Archives is not the set that he and his team produced on November 23–24, 1963

Dino died on September 25, 2015 aged 93. And he wasn’t same ‘conspiracy-theorist’ flake.

Brugioni was an authority on contrived or altered photography, described in his book ‘Photo Fakery’.
Brugioni wrote more than 90 articles, mainly on the application of overhead imagery to intelligence and other fields. He helped with and appeared in over 75 news and historical television programs.

Brugioni received numerous citations and commendations, including the CIA Intelligence Medal of Merit, the CIA Career Intelligence Medal and the prestigious U.S. Government Pioneer in Space Medal for his role in the development of satellite reconnaissance.
He twice received the Sherman Kent Award, the CIA's top award for outstanding contributions to intelligence. However, he was most proud of the commendation he received from President John F. Kennedy for contributions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On April 13, 2005, he was inducted into the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Hall of Fame.

BACK TO THE MURDER OF CHARLIE KIRK

As for the endless bollocks spoken about the disassembly of the CK shooter's rifle. Bolt action rifles cannot, I repeat, cannot be taken apart at will. An over and under shotgun is made up of three parts; barrel, stock/receiver and forend. A bolt action rifle cannot be taken apart.

That’s not correct Borjastick.
Wetzelrad also made incorrect statements about the assembly saying it wasn’t important.
This detail is actually of CRUCIAL importance for the official narrative incriminating Tyler Robinson.

And the debate and permitted confusion on this detail shows how deceptions rely on most of us having no knowledge of weapons, ballistics, etc. An ignorance that the murderers and cover-up participants rely on!

But now we have social media and the internet. So ignorance is now — more than ever before in human history— a choice.
Because knowledgeable people can and do share their expertise. We just have to do research and be willing to learn.
Most people haven’t the time or the inclination. And governments and secret-service conspirators know this. Which ALSO explains WHY professional deceivers have videos and trolls on social media making videos and arguments that DELIBERATELY create confusion and lead people down to false-trails with often deliberately crazy theories.
The reasoning behind this I explained in my initial response to Wetzelrad.

The barrel of a bolt action rifle cannot be removed…

Incorrect! It definitely can!
Plus it had to be possible to fit the FBI narrative claiming the person filmed in UVU surveillance is the murderer.





Here’s someone demonstrating how the person in the surveillance video was carrying the disassembled Mauser 98 .30 06 rifle.



And here’s the same guy demonstrating how quick and easy it is to reassemble it in minutes with just a screwdriver. Watch from 4:46.

[borjastick]

A barrel of a bolt action rifle cannot be removed. This is not difficult to understand. For the hard of understanding I mean in the circumstances of the CK shooting. In a proper workshop in the hands of a trained and experienced gunsmith it could be removed but this isn't some spy thriller film with The Jackal swiftly and expertly unscrewing his home made sniper rifle and slipping it effortlessly into a bag disguised as false leg or something.

The gun we have been shown as used by the killer of CK could not have been dismantled and placed inside the back pack you show in the pictures above. Not going to happen. I know a thing or two about guns. Others here obviously do not.

I'm not getting into conspiracies about second or third shooters, patsies and israeli mossad taking him out or an inside job etc. I have no idea about these claims and their veracity. But I do know that when I was shooting my Bergara .308 regularly at the range and in a calm state of mind on level ground if I tried ten times to hit a melon from 300m or so I would be lucky to hit it more than once or twice. Perhaps not at all. And I can shoot. I have vast experience of Practical Shooting with 9mm and 40 cal handguns, twenty odd years of shotgun clay shooting competitions, many of which every year I win and was on the Royal Marines CTC course where we shot the 7.62 SLR and prior to that two years in the army cadets where we shot .22 and 303 Lee Enfield.

The little shit may have shot CK I simply don't know, but I also simply don't know how he could have done it with the rifle we have been shown. Apart from the rifle being total shit the scope is all over the place. Something smells very fishy about this. Prove Me Wrong!

[Stubble]

To remove the barrel would have taken specialized tools and a bench with a vice.

The theory is that he removed the stock and split the stock and action/scope/barrel, then slid one into one pant leg and the other in the other. An ace wrap may have been used to keep it from slipping.

140 yards with an '06 is nothing impressive at all and at 140 yards, the round still had enough energy to lift up a truck.

Borjastick, if you ever cross the pond and want to go shooting, hit me up. I would gladly hit the range with you Sir. Thank you for your service.