“Charlie Kirk was shot simultaneously at close range from at least four different directions…..”

” two coming from remotely triggered devices (behind and above as well as below and before him) and two from male shooters at the perimeter of the Pavillon (immediately in from of him at his left as well as on his right side)”

Comment posted by Been_there_done_that

Though the author has usefully summarized and underscored the rationale for why Israel had a compelling motive to execute Kirk, this essay is seriously flawed because of an egregious misdirection in the first sentence that tends to distract attention away from the individual perpetrators who actually carried out the operation at close range:

…Chris Martenson has, I believe, conclusively shown that Charlie Kirk was shot from a different building at Utah Valley University… 

The author had made this statement in a prior essay on September 29, after which I had responded to correct him only a few hours later; see my comment here:

https://www.unz.com/article/the-weird-theory-of-kirks-fake-death/?showcomments#comment-7322524

Martenson had made the key mistake of falsely presuming that Kirk had been killed by one shot into his throat from the front, in accordance with the prevailing narrative in the media, so that the conclusions he derived, based on this unwarranted premise – in conjunction with anatomical features (bone material) that might have redirected such a bullet inward to avoid exiting out the back – must necessarily be invalid too.

At the time of Martenson’s video presentation, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people had already been able to view the individual frames showing Kirk’s murder, viewed from the front. From the sequence of images (16 frames per second) it was apparent that the red hole at Kirk’s throat appeared after his head had initially jerked forward from the impact of the projectile that hit him at the back of the head, from above. Furthermore, since the initial hole at the throat subsequently enlarged and expelled clumpy material, this confirmed that the throat had been the exit wound.

Additional video confirmation of the entry wound at the back of the head was presented in a video just before Kirk was being placed into the back of an SUV. Since no people were located behind and above Kirk, the source had to have been the short barrel above the camera mounted onto the structure of the Pavillon. The projectile that exited through the throat was powered by the sudden release of highly compressed gas stored in a canister beside the camera. This sudden burst of a few cubic feet of air at Kirk’s neck is consistent with the observation of Kirk’s bursting or fluttering T-shirt at that moment, for which phenomenon there has been no other plausible explanation.

Martenson simply ignored all these basic observations and conclusions. He willfully disregarded the evidence that the throat was an exit wound. He thus reenforced the story of the unnamed physician at the hospital, who had purportedly postulated a pinball wizard bullet that hit a spine of steel, which was a variation of the earlier conjecture that body armor (which Kirk had not worn) had supposedly deflected a bullet upward, so as to justify the lack of an exit wound at the rear of his head. The contortions that some people will engage in to distract from the most basic realities is astounding, and I am not even referring to the hoaxes claiming that Kirk had faked his death with Hollywood blood squibs, or that he had not died because there had not been enough blood.

Though I did not grow up as a kid watching Sesame Street on television, I would assume that children would have learned from that show the temporal notions of before and after, if not also cause and effect. Martenson’s unbelievable conclusion is nothing other than gaslighting, which intentionally contradicts what was actually observed. One has to wonder why the author clings to it anyway. Another concept that has been ignored in the shooting is that of simultaneousness. Since the murder device behind Kirk had to have been triggered remotely, this does not preclude the likelihood that other shots were also fired at him at close range, from other directions, so as to ensure his execution and confuse the investigation.

In prior comments I have pointed to other videos showing a putative shooter with brown plaid shirt who likely a shot a small caliber pellet from a palm gun and shortly thereafter led the removal of Kirk’s body, separated from the group of five people who were carrying his body and then fled the scene as they approached the SUV. Also, another video from the side showed a frame indicating the motion of a projectile from below at the stage, as it went upward between Kirk’s feet. If it had also been gas propelled, this would be consistent with a blast of air coming from below. However, yet another video shows suspicious activity from the side. A man with white shirt and white cap appears to be taking aim at Kirk from his right side at the time the shot was heard; note the frames beginning at roughly 0:52 seconds, in this case a recoil is unmistakable:

https://twitter.com/2_BEAST_SYSTEMS/status/1967077838684836115

Since there are compelling indications that Kirk was shot simultaneously at close range from at least four different directions, two coming from remotely triggered devices (behind and above as well as below and before him) and two from male shooters at the perimeter of the Pavillon (immediately in from of him at his left as well as on his right side), one can easily conclude that this entailed an elaborate operation with multiple participants and prior planning. Additionally, there is the aspect of removing the installed murder devices from the crime scene and the key perpetrators making a getaway. Since these co-conspirators have been captured on video, one has to wonder why the focus is not placed on affirming their specific involvement and trying to identify them, given that the relevant still images contain sufficient resolution. A close look at the shooter in the front row, who had three accomplices surrounding him, as well as the two fat characters guarding the perimeter with weapons while supervising the tampering and removal of evidence from the stage, reveals that they had fake hairpieces, beards or sideburns.

Though not much is to be expected by the big legacy media to point toward the manner in which Kirk was executed, it appears that the alternative media are equally involved in covering up on behalf of the individual perpetrators, so that they can avoid potential scrutiny, which would preclude the possibility of authorities obtaining search and arrest warrants, leading to possible indictments and convictions. This limited hangout approach thus dwells on the generalities that are already obvious to most observers who have followed Kirk’s execution event but attempts to obscure or censor the details and prevent any specific accountability. Thereby, such a response actually assists the perpetrators by promoting exactly what they intended to achieve by confirming the murderer’s desired projection of impunity and the consequent intimidation of many who might now prefer to pretend that nothing can be done to oppose them.

____
https://www.unz.com/article/the-public-execution-of-charlie-kirk/

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.