Authorities are claiming to have recovered a rifle wrapped in a towel in the woods near the shooting and they believe this to be the weapon used in the murder. Allegedly there were three unfired rounds still in the rifle and there were leftist slogans written on the casings
source? Press conference this morning didn't give details on rounds and writings on gun.
Exactly. Key word is allegedly. What is the source?
Yes the bullet engravings have been reported on... but if true it sure seems fishy as heck if you ask me.
Hello, care to chat a little?
Oh I share your sentiment
It’s reported widely but I think WSJ had it first. Regardless, if you’re skeptical about convenient facts, I share your sentiment
Wall Street Journal reported it first and I am seeing it in Reuters and elsewhere.
Feels like Intel or foreign gov trying to start civil war.
well, the facts are that the shot would not have taken a pro sniper to do, just a someone trained adequately, 200 yards is not a hard distance with a scope and a 303 or 308 cal and by the amount of superficial damage i'm betting they were hollowed, also likely the bullet hit his shoulderblade and again, this seems indicative of the bullet being an expanding tip of some sort. probably not a FMJ.
remote control assassins is pretty much proven, i saw a video where a hypnotist demonstrated doing it, using hypnosis to train the shooter really quickly (which was part of the go signal trigger) and the individual "blanked out" while they were doing it. so, yeah, hypnotising someone to shoot on a signal is easy to do, and someone with susceptibility to hypnosis, very easy to implant all the ideas to write all that stuff, the manifesto, the bullet engravings, etc.
meanwhile, the people who orchestrate it sit comfortably distant while their wingnut takes the heat for them.
OR, the evidence was created like this in order to mislead the investigators, that seems more likely, and that the shooter was a trained covert operative, a mercenary, who was given loads of money and help and guarantees to escape without being found. either way, it's covert ops, spooks, and psychological operations, one on the public, the other on the shooter and the public.
Sure does. But let’s be honest. At this point in the breakdown of our national society it’s also entirely possible that some angry young individual was so bought into the leftist propaganda that he thought he was doing a good thing
I agree with your assessment that the shooter did not have to be particularly skilled and also on the very real possibility that this has been orchestrated in some way. However we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that it really is just a lone individual heavily influenced by years of hysterical left-wing propaganda thinking he’s doing a good deed by taking out a bad guy. I’m not ruling out shadow individuals and deep state organizations but let’s not overlook the damage that has been done by regime media and the increasingly shrill culture that nowadays counts as “mainstream”
Do they make that shot and escape though?
Possible
I just saw that. WSJ normally a reliable source, but it’s still early.
I think we’ve all seen too many action movies that make us think it takes a ninja to pull the trigger and escape but honestly it doesn’t.
Very early. And who knows what to believe about anything these days.
That’s unnecessarily cynical.
Well, I believe Charlie Kirk was a real person and that he was killed and I believe that killing was utterly wrong. Beyond that, it’s very hard to know what information can be trusted about the specifics of this event. With these high profile killings, everyone has an agenda and they’re either actively pushing it— perhaps with deliberate misinformation or at the very least they may be letting their bias influence their narrative so that they appear more confident than they really are when asserting what they claim to know
I can relate. That’s why we need to consult reliable sources and wait for police to do their job.
Agreed. But I think that no specific source is always reliable so it’s a lot more work than I feel like it used to be to decide on what is true. I think the best we can do nowadays is triangulate based on multiple sources after having made sure that they’re not all simply echoing one source
Or maybe you've become much more aware of the need to triangulate because all information is partial.
I think it’s both. It really did used to be easier for people in our society to agree on narrative and also, as you say, there was always a need to triangulate because indeed all information is partial
Information follows a Pareto distribution: 90 percent of the information comes from 10 percent of the sources. Prior to the internet and mobile phones, that meant a few TV networks and local radio stations and newspapers. It used to cost tens of dollars for a long distance phone call; now it’s basically free. Now the outliers can broadcast their messages. In some cases, they’re valuable. But there are a lot of wing nuts out there. There have always been conspiracy theories, for instance, but now they have a global community and can talk to each other.
If you’re saying that it used to be easier for people to settle on a narrative, whether that narrative accurately or inaccurately reflects the truth, that’s what I’m also saying.
Agreed
