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

[Wetzelrad]

On Friday Candace Owens publicized some more of her text messages with Kirk. Screencaps of those messages went semi-viral in this post. 10 of the top 30 replies made the accusation that the messages were fake, either because of visual artifacts or because no timestamp appears in the screencaps. The user responded that the visual artifacts were caused by AI upscaling he used on the screencaps.

Just another innocuous explanation for an accusation of forgery.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Ho-hum.
Yet another post that has NOTHING go do with the ‘Kirk killing’ scenario.

Yet another post that ignores and distracts from all the flaws in the ‘official’ narrative.

Yet another post that has nothing to do with the extremely apparent MSM and FBI cover-up plus misdirection.

It appears W and S are both intent in making discussion predominantly about a blogger called Candace Owen, rather than the info she is sharing.

Hmmmmm?

I wonder why…?

Time for some more satire, perhaps?

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Here ya go.

• Something for all those who want to try to make the story about a particular person rather than the message they are sharing:

• something for all those who want to deceive and pretend they ”see no evidence” of Israeli involvement.

• for those who didn’t watch the ‘satire’ video just shared.

Enjoy!

[Scott]

Jeez, Candace is dumb.

The BYU campus is only four miles from the UVU campus, and I will bet that there are more than twelve Israelis attending BYU, as they have a high proportion of international students. Some of them might have attended the September 10th, 2025 Charlie Kirk event at nearby Utah Valley University.

I graduated from what is now called BYU-Idaho and also from Idaho State University, and there were a lot of foreign students attending BYU. My roommate, for example, was a Mormon from New Zealand. His Dad had been the principal at the Church College of New Zealand at Hamilton where the LDS Temple is, one of the few LDS secondary schools (now closed), and my Uncle had even taught there for a time in the early 1970s.

Anyway, I really enjoyed this Jeff Ostroff video. He is a construction engineer who analyzes disasters on YouTube like collapsed buildings and the recent UPS plane crash, and he did some fine work on the 2024 Butler shooting. Here Mr. Ostroff takes down "retired CIA experts" and podcaster idiots who are losing the plot on the Robinson shooting by actually spreading lies and misinformation to stoke conspiracy theories like grifter Candace.





I remind everyone that the autopsy and ballistics report on the Kirk shooting have NOT yet been released to the public, so anything anomalous on the .30-06 caliber wound ballistics is speculation at this point.

Hopefully, this evidence will all be released during Tyler Robinson's trial, unless the Liberal Jews in Utah manage to score a plea bargain deal in order to drop the hated Death Penalty ─ as happened with the Idaho quadruple student stabbing murder trial at the University of Idaho recently. Hopefully, the Utah County Prosecutor has more spine than the hippie dippie prosecutor in Moscow, Idaho did.

[pilgrimofdark]

Hopefully, this evidence will all be released during Tyler Robinson's trial, unless the Liberal Jews in Utah manage to score a plea bargain deal in order to drop the hated Death Penalty ─ as happened with the Idaho quadruple student stabbing murder trial at the University of Idaho recently. Hopefully, the Utah County Prosecutor has more spine than the hippie dippie prosecutor in Moscow, Idaho did.

Even if there's a plea deal, all the evidence will become available via public records requests. A lot of that is coming out now in the "Idaho 4" case.

The trial would display the most graphic photos/videos to the jury, but that specific evidence wouldn't be livestreamed anyway. So it would only be seen by people in attendance.

Prosecutors/defense don't use ALL the evidence during a trial, just what they believe is enough to get beyond their burden of proof. So even more material should be available via public records than we'd seen in a trial.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Jeez, [Scott’s psychological projection makes him think ] Candace is dumb.

The BYU campus is only four miles from the UVU campus, and I will bet that there are more than twelve Israelis attending BYU, as they have a high proportion of international students. Some of them might have attended the September 10th, 2025 Charlie Kirk event at nearby Utah Valley University.

Duh! That is not being debated.
That reasoning was even mentioned by Candy Owen in that clip. So who here is actually being “dumb”?
Instead what is actually being asked is a valid question:
who are the people with the Israeli-registered cell-phone accounts?
Name them / identify them. Are they students or not?

I suggest that ONLY people wanting to conceal facts, and attempting to stifle any investigation pursuing possible Israeli involvement, would try to present this valid question as somehow being “dumb”.

Scott likes presenting personal narratives to deflect. So here’s one from me.
When I spent long periods abroad researching a book in a country not covered by my home cell-phone account, I replaced it with a local one. I.e. I put a local sim card in it. Consequently anyone tracking would NOT have been able to detect which country I was actually from.
Any student from the Zionist-entity state currently illegally occupying zPalestine would surely do the same.

My understanding is that THIS is what the evidence being referred to is actually about.

… [snip] …and podcaster idiots who are losing the plot on the Robinson shooting by actually spreading lies and misinformation to stoke conspiracy theories like grifter... [snip]…

• We don’t yet KNOW whether it actually is a “Robinson shooting”.
So false info no.1.

• Applying ad hominem insults to anyone and everyone who questions and researches the facts is EXACTLY what holyH promoters and deceivers use as their prime method of concealment of the actual facts.
So false info no.2.

• Using the discredited, gas-lighting, “conspiracy theory” ad hominem insult here, I submit is conclusive proof Scott is engaged in calculated misinformation-spreading and obfuscation.
So false info no.3.

I remind everyone that the autopsy and ballistics report on the Kirk shooting have NOT yet been released to the public, so anything anomalous on the .30-06 caliber wound ballistics is speculation at this point.

What damage bullets from a specific Mauser 98 .30-06 would NORMALLY do to a person’s neck from 140 hards is definitely NOT “speculation”. That is a clear lie from Scott. I invite readers here at CODOH to ponder upon why someone would for weeks only choose to contribute to CODOH discussion by deceiving and obfuscating on the ‘Kirk killing’ scenario, and nothing else.

Hopefully, this evidence will all be released during Tyler Robinson's trial…

Only “hopefully”?!?

[Wetzelrad]

10 of the top 30 replies made the accusation that the messages were fake [...]

I also missed this post making the same accusation, racking up 1.7M views. Most of the bigger hasbara influencers had the good sense not to QT or repeat the claim, which is obviously false.

.
Ho-hum.
Yet another post that has NOTHING go do with the ‘Kirk killing’ scenario.

Yes, well I'm not going to continue reiterating the points that were already made, and I'm not going to keep dedicating my time to new inconclusive evidence tied together with insinuaton.

Here is a brief response to the claim that a CIA spyplane was somehow involved in the assassination. It turns out that this was an ordinary flight path for it, including what you call "unusual flight manoeuvres".



For this flight to be anything other than ordinary and unrelated, some better evidence will have to be provided.

I remind everyone that the autopsy and ballistics report on the Kirk shooting have NOT yet been released to the public, so anything anomalous on the .30-06 caliber wound ballistics is speculation at this point.

If I can engage in some of that speculation, one of the unusual aspects of this case is that the ground (apparently mostly grass) around the victim's booth was torn up and replaced with paving bricks. Some vague insinuations have been made about why this was done, but it seems like the more obvious reason was to gather evidence, no? Is it possible that they found or expected to find bullet fragments in the ground? This has bearing on the ballistics questions.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Here is a brief response to the claim that a CIA spyplane was somehow involved in the assassination.

It isn”t being “claimed” that the plane “was somehow involved in the assassination”.
Holy moly!
You are again displaying the exact indifference to evidence that this, YOUR OWN topic-thread, warned against.

The spy plane being direct above the Utah University and at is lowest altitude and slowest speed ONE MINUTE AFTER the alleged shot, is UNUSUAL and noteworthy.
At the most, it might be evidence of some sort of fore-knowledge.
No-one has suggested “involvement in the assassination” yet!

You are trying to excuse away evidence BECAUSE it doesn’t fit the official narrative… or possibly: a.) doesn’t fit what you yourself want to believe or b.) what you (for some reason) want others to believe.

If I can engage in some of that speculation, one of the unusual aspects of this case is that the ground (apparently mostly grass) around the victim's booth was torn up and replaced with paving bricks. Some vague insinuations have been made about why this was done, but it seems like the more obvious reason was to gather evidence, no?

Er, no.
No it doesn’t seem like that.
No normal, genuine ‘investigation’ destroys the crime scene in that way, nor would there be any need to do so.

Is it possible that they found or expected to find bullet fragments in the ground?

They wouldn’t need to completely destroy the ‘crime scene’ by removing it in order to look for bullet fragments.
I find it hard to believe this is a serious suggestion.
So again I wonder, are you in some way being paid, of coerced or blackmailed into spreading such nonsense suggestions?

[Wetzelrad]

If I can engage in some of that speculation, one of the unusual aspects of this case is that the ground (apparently mostly grass) around the victim's booth was torn up and replaced with paving bricks. Some vague insinuations have been made about why this was done, but it seems like the more obvious reason was to gather evidence, no?

Er, no.
No it doesn’t seem like that.
No normal, genuine ‘investigation’ destroys the crime scene in that way, nor would there be any need to do so.

Well that's not true. It is a normal practice for police to take samples from flooring or walls at a major crime scene. Sometimes they will cut up the crime scene if it helps to illustrate a legal point. In this case, the environment being outdoors and easily accessible meant there was a serious risk of crime scene contamination. Ripping up the dirt therefore makes sense to me, if they were looking for bullet fragments or other hard-to-locate evidence. Probably the university agreed to it because they knew people would want to visit the site, and indeed it has since been used for memorializing Kirk.

This is still speculative, though. I haven't seen any evidence that the dirt was taken by police, only that a construction crew was there on September 15th to put in brick pavers or concrete.

I guess the other possibility is that it was a bloody mess, so they wanted to clean it up before granting access to the public.

[Wahrheitssucher]

If I can engage in some of that speculation, one of the unusual aspects of this case is that the ground (apparently mostly grass) around the victim's booth was torn up and replaced with paving bricks. Some vague insinuations have been made about why this was done, but it seems like the more obvious reason was to gather evidence, no?

Er, no.
No it doesn’t seem like that.
No normal, genuine ‘investigation’ destroys the crime scene in that way, nor would there be any need to do so.

Well that's not true.

If you are correct then you should be able to give numerous examples of crime scenes that were immediately removed completely, thereby destroying them and replacing them with a sanitised renovation.
Please do so, now!
Please provide other cases of that which you are claiming is ‘normal’ police procedure.

Failure to do so will prove you are deliberately lying to protect the ‘official’ narrative.

It is a normal practice for police to take samples from flooring or walls at a major crime scene.

Yeah, but we are not discussing just “taking samples”.
So another pathetic, transparently deceptive attempt at avoiding the reality. Why? Why are you doing this?

Probably the university agreed to it because they knew people would want to visit the site, and indeed it has since been used for memorializing Kirk. This is still speculative, though…

Your excuses are becoming increasingly lame.

I guess the other possibility is that it was a bloody mess, so they wanted to clean it up before granting access to the public.

Yeah, yeah! Sure!
And all the grass in front of the area where the tent was also was a “bloody mess” that had to be paved over??!
Seriously?!

Actually that is one of the case peculiarities: that there is ZERO evidence of ANY blood visible anywhere in the numerous viral videos:
not on Kirk’s clothes;
not on any of the people who immediately attended him then carried him to the car;
not a single drop of blood is visible on the paving stones along the route that Kirk was carried along to the car.

Yet here you are claiming it was a “bloody mess” even on the grass in front of where he’d been sitting!

Your attempts at deception and misdirection are becoming increasingly pathetic.



I invite people to watch the above video showing the renovation /destruction of evidence at the crime scene.
A crime-scene sanitisation while the FBI insisted their investigation was still underway!

I also invite people to consider and recognise that there is an emerging split as a result of the genocide in Gaza that Zionist-Jews worldwide are STILL committing and celebrating and justifying on social-media.

Coupled with that split is the rise in the phenomenon of ‘noticing’ jewish propaganda, jewish institutionalised deceits, jewish privilege plus ‘noticing’ Zionism as a form Jewish supremacy.

The zionist-jews just lost numerous prominent right-winger supporters like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Megyn Kelly.

What is being studiously avoided by Wetzelrad and Scott is that these psychopathic zionist-jews ALSO had just lost Charlie Kirk. And that after creating him and making him rich.

After he was PUBLICLY announcing that he was splitting from the ‘pro-Israel’ camp, they made frantic efforts to bully and entice him back. He refused and expressed his disgust of them, their current leader, their pathological lying and their evil actions in occupied Palestine.

Evidence has been provided that proves Kirk had been pressured to cease his criticism.
Evidence has been shared revealing that Billionaire Bill Ackman raged at Kirk in a private conversation and orchestrated an “intervention” in the exclusive retreat of the Hamptons.
Evidence exists showing that Netanyahu himself had called Kirk to invite him to the apartheid Zionist ethno-state on goyim territory, and that huge donations — totaling $150 million  —  were offered to Kirk via his company ‘Turning Point USA’ to keep Kirk on board. Much of that evidence has come from Candace Owen. Which is presumably WHY Scott keeps denigrating her.

The prominent zio-jewish donor Bill Ackman lied and denied this evidence, but multiple sources backed up and corroborated these reports with yet more confirming evidence.
Netanyahu couldn’t deny having rung Kirk to entice/bully him as he had tweeted about calling Kirk on September 10th, the very day that Kirk was apparently ‘shot’. In that tweet, he admitted that “I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel.” A week later, Netanyahu felt compelled to publicly deny that “Israel” had assassinated Kirk. Twice! He felt compelled to deny it TWICE!

The reality to anyone paying attention is that the Zionist jews who effectively control Congress, American foreign policy and Trump, NOW have a big problem with the American political right. And that’s why they are ploughing millions into bribing/enticing a network of US Conservative influencers.

In late 2024, the Knesset approved a $150 million budget for “Hasbara“, or propaganda, targeting the West. The funding boosts the hundreds of millions contributed by Zionist foundations and jewish donors in the US.

Perhaps Scott and Wetzelrad have taken some shekels?

As Mr.W keeps dodging the question of whether he is being paid or blackmailed/coerced to spread his nonsense excuses, I conclude that he is in some way. He presumably now classifies as an infiltrator who’s mission has become protecting Isra-hell’s nefarious activities from scrutiny. Like Scott also appears to be.

[Archie]

...
Perhaps Scott and Wetzelrad have taken some shekels?

As Mr.W keeps dodging the question of whether he is being paid or blackmailed/coerced to spread his nonsense excuses, I conclude that he is in some way. He presumably now classifies as an infiltrator who’s mission has become protecting Isra-hell’s nefarious activities from scrutiny. Like Scott also appears to be.

I have not been reading this thread, but this is getting a little wacky.

Some people were speculating that this was an Israeli hit right from the start. And I understand that impulse since Israel is quite unscrupulous and has a history of being assassination-happy. See here for a good summary of this history.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... sinations/

Maybe "Israel did it" is not the worst default assumption whenever there is an assassination, but we can't conclude that without some actual evidence, especially if the motive is not very compelling.

In this case, even assuming the worst in the Israelis, I do not see why they would take out Kirk of all people. Just in terms of risk/reward and cost/benefit analysis. And, yes, I heard the thing about how he was supposedly turning on them or whatever (not well established at all, imo), but if they wanted to sideline him there were lots of ways to do that without the risk of doing an assassination on US soil. They could have just stopped paying him, for example. Or could have manufactured a scandal of some sort. These less intrusive methods would be much preferable, especially since Kirk had zero actual political power.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I have not been reading this thread,…

…yes, I heard the thing about how he [Kirk] was supposedly turning on them or whatever (not well established at all, imo)…

Hmmm?
So… You haven’t followed the evidence presented here. Yet you feel confident in presenting an opinion that the evidence is only “supposed” and “not well established”.

Interesting.

[Wetzelrad]

It isn”t being “claimed” that the plane “was somehow involved in the assassination”.
Holy moly!

Okay, well if it isn't involved then don't bring it into the thread. It's off topic.

Is it possible that they found or expected to find bullet fragments in the ground?

They wouldn’t need to completely destroy the ‘crime scene’ by removing it in order to look for bullet fragments.

Why not, if the bullet fragmented? Wouldn't it be easier to determine what happened in the JFK assassination if they had found all the bullet fragments? But they didn't, and because the crime scene was left open to the public that evidence was permanently lost. Did that not "destroy the crime scene"?

If you are correct then you should be able to give numerous examples of crime scenes that were immediately removed completely, thereby destroying them and replacing them with a sanitised renovation.

OSHA guidelines say that soil contaminated with blood should be treated as hazardous waste. If Kirk bled as much as he appeared to on camera, then the ground was saturated with blood, so why wouldn't they remove it?

In the attempt to take this to a conclusion, I will put it this way. If you are actually open-minded about this topic then you should be able to unemotionally consider the alternative hypotheses I've raised. Is it normal for a crime scene to be cleaned up, and could that explain the cleanup in this case? Is it normal for planes to fly over Utah, and could that explain the flight in this case? Is it normal for investigators to withhold certain evidence from the public, like the autopsy report and videos in this case?

If the answer to every question of this type is yes, or approaches yes, then Kirk could very well have been shot by the man who is accused. Reacting negatively to all these points is excessive.

[Wahrheitssucher]

It isn”t being “claimed” that the plane “was somehow involved in the assassination”.
Holy moly!

Okay, well if it isn't involved then don't bring it into the thread. It's off topic.

No, it’s definitely not “off topic”.
Its relevant evidence that is suggestive of official fore-knowledge.
You just tried to misrepresent it.
And now that your attempt has been exposed as a.) deceitful or b.) miscomprehending misdirection, you are doubling down.

So which is it: are you a.) deliberately misrepresenting it or b.) miscomprehending it? I’m genuinely asking.

Is it possible that they found or expected to find bullet fragments in the ground?

They wouldn’t need to completely destroy the ‘crime scene’ by removing it in order to look for bullet fragments.

Why not, if the bullet fragmented?

Wow!
I find this line of avoidance quite shockingly illogical!
There was allegedly only ONE “shot”. That “shot” allegedly hit the target (Charlie Kirk) in the neck and DID NOT EXIT HIS BODY!!!!
So… Where are these supposed “bullet fragments” supposedly coming from? From which bullet? From the one that allegedly entered and miraculously remained in his body?

And why would they need to destroy the lawn IN FRONT of Kirk to search for these “bullet fragments” from a bullet that never exited his body and, if it had done so, would have exited BEHIND him?
[N.B. I deleted your disreputable attempt to muddy the waters by re-introducing the JFK assassination]

If you are correct then you should be able to give numerous examples of crime scenes that were immediately removed completely, thereby destroying them and replacing them with a sanitised renovation.

OSHA guidelines say that soil contaminated with blood should be treated as hazardous waste.
If Kirk bled as much as he appeared to on camera, then the ground was saturated with blood, so why wouldn't they remove it?

1. Thats yet another transparent dodge — the logical fallacy called ‘moving the goalposts’. I assume it is because you have no other cases proving your bogus claim.
2. Removing the relatively small area of turf that would have had the unevidenced, unphotographed, unfilmed and unwitnessed alleged “blood saturation” would obviously not require removing a large part of the lawn that would have been completely free of blood plus far removed from where Kirk sat.






Give it up now, Mr.W.
You are only demonstrating that you are either:
i.) a gullible dupe who readily believes official narratives if you are encouraged to and feels a virtue-signalling duty to promote it to others plus to police skepticism of it,
OR
ii.) are intent on distracting everyone from any research, analysis and evidence that possibly shows a deception in play, for some reason.

In the attempt to take this to a conclusion, I will put it this way. If you are actually open-minded about this topic then you should be able to unemotionally consider the alternative hypotheses I've raised.

You couldn’t support your illogical and false claim so you try to imply I am being closed-minded and emotional!

I am totally open-minded and unemotional.
I DO look at what you call your “alternative hypotheses”, but I just regard them as transparently bogus and illogical. And I have explained precisely why.

SUMMARY:
I am aware that there has been extremely little conclusive evidence released to us the public.
Consequently, unlike you and Scott, I have not reached any conclusion yet.
Consequently, unlike you and Scott, I have not obediently and gullibly accepted the official, unevidenced story.
Consequently, unlike you and Scott, I have not concluded T. Robinson is definitely guilty.
Unlike you, I am not rejecting evidence if I don’t like it and/or because it refutes what the FBI, govt. and msm are telling us we should believe.
Which is why I find it surprising that anyone who has recognised how our govts, news media, TV executives and gullible dupes in society promote a blatantly false ‘official’ WW2 narrative to us, would except, justify, find excuses for, and defend from scrutiny an ‘official’ narrative about anything any more. [I now only trust-without-checking the sports results ]

That is why I regard your attempt to paint me in this way as such pathetic avoidance of the actual reality occurring here.

I’m just arguing for looking at all the evidence objectively without any premature bias.
Plus for not dismissing any evidence prematurely [which is the subject of this, your own, topic-thread]

As I see it you (and especially Scott) are arguing against that and for accepting the unevidenced ‘official story’.
You are doing that by inventing lame excuses if any possibly contrary evidence comes up.
And Scott is doing that by obfuscating any discussion with off-topic ramblings and spiteful smearing of anyone showing any doubt or skepticism.

As an example of an objective, unbiased attitude… I invite you to ponder uoon this:
if we are totally open-minded and unemotional we should all concede that we haven’t actually been shown ANY EVIDENCE that Kirk is actually dead. No autopsy certificate. No death certificate. No body. No funeral. No blood on him, his clothes, his shoes, the ground beneath him, the paving stones he was carried over, nor on anyone of his security team. We never even got to see a grieving widow — on the contrary.
Can you admit that truth? Or are you too closed-minded and emotionally attached to the ‘official’ narrative.

Now as you have repeatedly shown you have a tendency to misread and/or miscomprehend simple statements, but instead jump to false conclusions, let me make this clear:
I’m not arguing Kirk is alive. I’m just unemotionally, open-mindedly, objectively assessing ALL the actual evidence without any attachment to any particular outcome or conclusion.

Is it normal for a crime scene to be cleaned up, and could that explain the cleanup in this case? Is it normal for planes to fly over Utah, and could that explain the flight in this case? Is it normal for investigators to withhold certain evidence from the public, like the autopsy report and videos in this case?

If the answer to every question of this type is yes, or approaches yes, then Kirk could very well have been shot by the man who is accused. Reacting negatively to all these points is excessive.

You are just making excuses for all and any evidence that doesn’t fit with your chosen premature conclusion, i.e. the official narrative.