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

[Wahrheitssucher]

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:
a.) 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
b.)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 ]

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.

I think that Epistemological Nihilism is a real problem in "our" circles. I am not sure what the answer is, but critical-thinking skill is a Revisionist art and science, and we need to find better ways to teach this and to learn the proper investigative methodology. Historiography is one of my favorite subjects, but I do not have all the answers.

I invite CODOH readers to notice what Scott is repeatedly doing here.
He is presenting himself as an expert who is applying critical thinking.
And anyone who disagrees with him as the opposite.

He’s also constantly asserting that the ‘official’ narrative is a slam-dunk case and any doubters are looney-tunes deniers and conspiracy theorists.
Which is precisely what HolyH promoters do. So the logical inconsistency is huge!

Plus he doesn’t present ANY evidence of that ‘expertise’ in either the JFK or Kirk killings.

NOR does he provide any verifiable evidence to support the official version in either.

Instead he just attacks skeptics as ‘grifters’, etc.
And he just insinuated they are equal to ‘flat-earthers’ and ‘epistemological nihilists’.

FAIL.

[Scott]

I provided a mountain of evidence on JFK:

The extremely-comprehensive Bugliosi tome, the doorstop-sized Myers book on the Tippit murder, and the Case Closed bestseller by Posner for those whose time is short.

As far as the Charlie Kirk murder, there is mainly what has been disclosed in the charging documents such as the DNA evidence, the UVU surveillance video that has been partially released, plus neighborhood home surveillance footage showing Robinson casing the area. Plus some hints from texts and chats from the accused, and of course Tyler's parents recognizing their son in photographs released to the public, and Grandpa's rifle that Tyler seemed to no longer have access to.

And during the trial itself, there will no doubt be much more evidence presented than has been released to us already ─ such as the metadata authenticating the Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs texts and chats.

Skepticism and asking questions is perfectly fine ─ unless it imperils using the evidence for coming to any kind of answers.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I provided a mountain of evidence on JFK: The extremely-comprehensive Bugliosi tome, the doorstop-sized Myers book on the Tippit murder, and the Case Closed bestseller by Posner for those whose time is short.

Someone else’s misrepresenting and concealing of some the facts is not ‘evidence’.
Plus your own avoidance of unwelcome evidence does not show ‘expertise’.

As far as the Charlie Kirk murder [case], there is mainly what has been disclosed in the charging documents such as the DNA evidence…

A ‘claim’ to have evidence is not “disclosing” the actual evidence itself.
Plus DNA evidence on a person’s possessions found at a crime scene is not definitive proof. The possibility is they were ‘planted’. An honest, unbiased, intelligent approach would allow for that possibility.

…the UVU surveillance video that has been partially released plus neighborhood home surveillance footage showing Robinson casing the area.

No it doesn’t “show” that. It shows as yet unidentified persons in a particular area. We don’t know yet if the person in each is the same person, who he/they was/were, nor what he/they were doing.
You are demonstrating either a massive confirmation bias or a deliberate and calculated desire to misinform.

Plus some hints from texts and chats from the accused,

we have seen no proof that those are genuine and much in them that suggests they are not.

…and of course Tyler's parents recognizing their son in photographs released to the public

It is alleged that that part of the ‘official’ story has been debunked by friends of the family who contacted Candace Owens. We have to conclude she is lying or that part of the ‘official’ story is false.

and Grandpa's rifle that Tyler seemed to no longer have access to.

You are misrepresenting what we ‘KNOW’ and what you want people to believe. E.g. Grandpa’s rifle fired from 140 hards wouldn’t have made the neat little neck-hole we saw in the videos.

And during the trial itself, there will no doubt be much more evidence presented than has been released to us already ─ such as the metadata authenticating the Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs texts and chats.

Hopeful speculation. Demonstrating that you are promoting a preferred final outcome as if its a slam-dunk.

Skepticism and asking questions is perfectly fine ─ unless it imperils using the evidence for coming to any kind of answers.

Oh boy!

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Anyone genuinely interested in understanding what actually happened at Utah University on September 10, 2025 might want to check out the viral analysis of the movements of Mikey McCoy immediately after the ‘shot’ was fired. He is the Chief of Staff of TPUSA and supposed to be a “close friend” of Kirk. He was at the event.
Film shows him immediately — (less than 1 second) — immediately turning away from Kirk and calmly walking away with his phone to his ear. I.e. he didn’t duck, nor look to see where the shot had come from — which would have been ‘normal’ behaviour.
And his immediate reaction did not show any sign of surprise at all!
Nor any sense of him or his team being in danger.
Plus he didn’t show ANY concern for Kirk at all — he turned away BEFORE Kirk had fallen off his chair.

Jimmy Dore, Candace Owens and others have isolated the video showing him, highlighted it and discussed this extreeeeeeeemely strange behaviour.
Also they have documented the false statements that McCoy’s father and TPUSA have made to explain away this odd reaction.

I urge anyone wanting to find out what ACTUALLY HAPPENED to check it out.

[Scott]

Either address Bugliosi, Myers, and Posner or drop it. It is not like I cited Jewish filmmaker Oliver Stone, or the actor Kevin Costner, as sources on the real JFK assassination.

Anyway, we should have a trial for Tyler Robinson unless the defendant dies in custody like Lee Harvey Oswald or something ─ or unless the Utah County Prosecutor caves to the Liberals and Jews who are unhappy about the Death Penalty, and a plea deal is offered.

Unlike Latah County in Idaho, which has a population of less that 40 thousand and an old hippie Prosecutor, Utah County in Utah ─ which is inside the Salt Lake City metropolitan area of about 1.3 million ─ has a population of almost 770 thousand.

Plus, the Utah County Prosecutor, the Utah State Governor, and President Trump have all called for the Death Penalty in this political assassination, and that was before a viable suspect was caught.

I agree that assassinations deserve capital punishment, and particularly for violence that endangers freedom-of-speech and academic integrity. I may or may not agree with Salman Rushdie, but the Jihadi who attacked and mutilated him on a lecture stage should be twisted on the gibbet. The People's Republic of New York could only muster up a 25 year sentence.

The sad thing is that campus security for the Charlie Kirk event was not stellar ─ but this assassination was on a free-speech college campus, and the guest speaker was not a former President of the United States like the assassination attempts on Trump, in one of which he was actually shot and mildly hit on the ear.

The connection between AntiFa and Tyler Robinson is not particularly strong ─ but they have been gunning for Turning Point USA for a long time, with neo-Marxist college professors and even academic librarians labelling Kirk and TP USA as "White Nationalist." This label is rather absurd since one of Kirk's guests at a rally a few years ago in Arizona where TP USA is based was Dennis Prager, an ultra-Zionist Libertarian or Conservative Jew.

I am reminded of the old W.C. Fields joke about alcoholics in that "Charlie Kirk is not a White Nationalist because I'm one and he doesn't come to the meetings."

Increased trial transparency and cameras in the courtroom are becoming the norm, so we will be able to scrutinize the case made for and against the guilt of the accused and hopefully get at least the basics of the autopsy report and bullet trajectory, the gun, the ammunition, and other ballistic facts.

[Wahrheitssucher]

The above video on X (Twitter) is of whistleblower Joshua Petersen making video testimony for posterity of his eye-witness experience of actions of cerian leaders of Turning Point USA (TPUSA).

…Building on Josh's previous claims to a secret TPUSA "stock market" branch handling over $5 million with zero listed employees — potentially money laundering — and suggests an "inner circle" opposed founder Charlie Kirk, and were working directly against him.

Josh is now allegedly facing backlash and threats to keep quiet on his experience and his inside knowledge of TPUSA.

The writing is on the wall ladies and gentleman. This isn't to hard to figure out the big picture here.
Our country has a massive foreign influence problem in U.S. conservative youth organizations, but all extends to BOTH sides of the aisle.
Are you starting to understand the games being played and the people who are running them?
We need to ALL come together, America first, and oust ALL foreign influence and put America and its people first.

https://cnbsnews.live/global-issues/tpu ... -of-tpusa/

[Wahrheitssucher]

[Wahrheitssucher]

[Wetzelrad]

I would like for this disaster to be over, but it is still ongoing and actually growing as a problem. Candace Owens, like it or not, has made herself the face of this thing, with the apparent endorsement of an ever-growing audience. So it's very troubling that she has learned nothing since October. She continues to double down, she admits no mistakes, and she continues to latch on to anything that could be assumed to be fake. Many people of a more conspiratorial bend have suggested Owens is a psyop to discredit anti-Zionists or conspiracy theorists generally. I doubt this accusation, but the discrediting by association has undeniably become a part of the public discourse.

Before I return to her treatment of Charlie Kirk, let me first talk about her treatment of Brigitte Macron, which dovetails nicely. Owens has accused the Macrons of an enormous act of fakery, and practically every piece of evidence to the contrary is also said to be somehow faked. Here is a brief list, exclusively from the amended complaint/lawsuit against her, so take it with a grain of salt.

A) Candace Owens claimed the Macrons are "a couple whose entire identity is based upon a fraudulent construct, forgery [...]"
B) She claimed a photo of Brigitte Macron was actually "a fake photo" which was "actually Jean-Michel’s daughter".
C) A photo of Brigitte Macron at 36 years of age was said to be a photo of some other woman with the same name and appearance.
D) She claimed to know that the bride in Brigitte Macron's wedding photo was actually a different Brigitte.
E) She claimed the Macrons' childrens' birth certificates were forged.
F) She claimed André-Louis Auzière's death may have been faked.
G) She claimed Emanuel Macron's test scores were faked.
H) She claimed the lawsuit against her contained "photos that we know are fake".

I don't support foreign heads of state filing defamation suits against American citizens. It's a category of lawsuit that shouldn't even be possible to exist! And yet Owens may very well have helped establish it as precedent by handling this situation so poorly that she may actually be held liable.

Now back to Charlie Kirk. Here is a short list to go along with the one in the OP:

9) Owens said repeatedly that "nothing in Charlie Kirk's life was real" and compared his life to The Truman Show. (Link.)

10) Across numerous videos Owens has tried to claim the Utah County indictment against Tyler Robinson is grossly false, particularly where it reveals that Robinson's own parents confronted him and brought him in. In one video she called it "the story or rather the non story we are getting from the feds". In fact court transcripts show that Robinson's own defense attorney, rather than contradicting these facts, actually used Robinson's surrender as evidence for his cooperativeness. His attorney also revealed his total disregard for "crazies" and "conspiracy theorists saying things online", which indicates that no part of what Candace Owens has uncovered will be used at trial.

11) After Owens accused numerous people of being in or near a meeting at Fort Huachuca just before the assassination, several of them have very compliantly come forward with positive alibis proving they were not there. Candace and her audience have tried to poke holes in all these alibis. Most recently, and spurring me to post this, she responded to Cabot Philips by saying that he still could have faked his alibi by editing the metadata, which he also shared.

12) Owens even accused one of her own fans of some type of malicious behavior, and when he volunteered to leak his private conversations to her, she of course wanted it in the form of a screen recording "timestamps included" so as to meet her standard for non-fakery. (Link.)

This is just monumentally stupid. Candace Owens is doing unquantifiable damage to the entire sphere of conspiracy theorists by constantly teeing up wins for her enemies. She is making the Zionist sphere look comparatively sane and intelligent. Fortunately some of the Zionists are just as stupid, which helps to soften the blow:

13) As with #8, Zionist influencers like CBHeresy have suggested (some joking, others in bad faith) that Candace Owens's own screenshots of conversations with Charlie Kirk were faked or could be faked. Obviously they were not.

14) There were also some clumsy accusations that a Mitch Snow incident report was "AI slop" and that the given license number and license plate number were fake. This is probably false and a totally unnecessary accusation.

I want to remark again that there is a big lesson in this: that we should seek to avoid this pattern of behavior for other topics. If a person can fool themselves into believing nonsense by recklessly believing everything to the contrary was forged, the same could happen elsewhere, so we should take care that we don't do it with the Holocaust or with other subjects like this.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I would like for this disaster to be over, but it is still ongoing and actually growing as a problem.
…Here is a brief list, exclusively from [the accused so NOT a neutral source]: the amended complaint lawsuit against her, so take it with a grain of salt.

…I want to remark again that there is a big lesson in this: that we should seek to avoid this pattern of behavior for other topics. If a person can fool themselves into believing nonsense by recklessly believing everything to the contrary was forged, the same could happen elsewhere, so we should take care that we don't do it with the Holocaust or with other subjects like this.

Nice bluff.
Nothing demonstrated to be “nonsensical”.
Nothing at all verified or proven in your list.
No sources confirming any of the accusations!!!
Instead just a long list of accusations that you expect us to accept just because you listed them.

AND you had the chutzpah to herald it with an admission we should not give the Macron ones much credence (“take with a grain of salt”).

It’s pathetic.
Here, try this.

Wetzelrad has made himself the ‘face’ of defending the Official Kirk-killing psy+op so let’s look at him.
Here’s an analysis from some source https://youtu.be/r7aoTLRI1Vo?feature=shared
A.) He was a very poor student.
B.) He failed almost all his exams at school.
C.) He was fired from numerous jobs.
D.) All his pets died from neglect.
E.) His garden lawn needs mowing.
F.) He has loads of overdue library-book loans.
G.) He has a really unfashionable hair-style.
H.) He still wears flared trousers from the 70s.

I don't support people indulging in defamation and unproven accusations and suits against other citizens. And yet Wetzelrad may very well have helped establish it as a precedent here at CODOH by handling this situation so poorly that he may actually be held in contempt.

There!
Is that a fair reply?

No, it isn’t.
But take this as a mirror showing what you have just done.

Give it up now! Deal with the actual evidence or stop embarrassing yourself.

You are making yourself look ridiculous.

And you are increasing the possibility of concluding that you have to be either i.) an extremely gullible dupe or ii.) a zionist mole.
Regretably the second option does seem the most likely, as I don’t think you are stupid person and because there is currently a huge zionist-led campaign ongoing right now that is seeking to discredit Ms.Owens, often with false or exaggerated accusations like yours. Hmmm? And… er, …coincidentally, you and Scott are doing the same here? Hmmm?

Q. Why? Why a huge smear campaign against Candace often based on lies?vAnd why now?
A. BECAUSE she has such a wide audience and BECAUSE she is presenting considerable credible evidence that MSM news-reporting isn't reporting. PLUS is asking questions (and getting answers) that certain people do not want given prominence. Plus is exposing the non-credible aspects of the ‘official’ narrative.

Plus…

[pilgrimofdark]

I don't follow Candace Owens at all, and I've only watched parts of the Tyler Robinson hearing livestreams. It's still so early in the process and this case will probably take 2 years or more to go to trial.

At a meta level, some of this discussion is about authenticity of documents and credibility of witnesses, two complicated issues.

We've talked about authenticity of certain Holocaust documents in other threads: Wiernik's Kennkarte (ID card), some "eyewitness" statements attributed to people but written by multiple others, signed "confessions" or testimony in languages the writer doesn't speak, the Treblinka uprising photos, etc.

It reminds me that someone needs to authenticate a document, preferably the creator of that document or an expert.

And depending on that process, the document isn't "authentic" or "a forgery." It's just "authenticated" or "not authenticated."

And if a document is authenticated by someone, then that person's credibility becomes an issue. Do we believe this person's authentication? If not, then the authenticity would still remain questionable.

Some things are eventually proven to be total forgeries, of course.

I don't really have a point with this post, just some random thoughts.

[Wetzelrad]

AND you had the chutzpah to herald it with an admission we should not give the Macron ones much credence (“take with a grain of salt”).

The Macron ones should actually be taken very seriously. You can't submit a complaint to the court that is filled with flagrant lies. That would be a good way to get disbarred. So we can start from the basis that at least the quotes and underlying facts are correctly represented. What Owens will have to dispute is the legitimacy of every photo and document. As of today she still has yet to prove that even one of them was falsified or falsely represented by the Macrons. She's never even gone beyond the point of raising doubt in them. So it's exceedingly unlikely that any much less all of her accusations are true.

Most telling are the circumstances in which Owens swapped from one debunked theory to a new theory. Like for item D on my list, Owens claimed first that it showed a woman named Susan Spray, then after testimony in a defamation lawsuit refuted that, Owens instead claimed that it was Brigitte's sister. As with the metadata scandal, this is the behavior of someone who is drowning and grasping wildly for anything that might save her, no matter how threadbare.

There!
Is that a fair reply?

No, it isn’t.
But take this as a mirror showing what you have just done.

This is sillyness. You know that nothing I posted above is false or made up.

Anyhow, have a happy new year.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…You can't submit a complaint to the court that is filled with flagrant lies…

Yes you can! Of course you can! People do it all the time.
What do you think the rape accusations against Julian Assange were?
Holy moly.
Maybe your not as smart as I suspected you were.

You know that nothing I posted above is false or made up.

On the contrary. I think ALL the accusations that I have looked into against Candace Owens are false and either: exaggerations; out-of-context; pedantic focusing on small errors; lies-by-omission; OR out-and-out LIES, which are often complete inventions.

Anyway, NONE of this is actually about that podcaster. To make it so is conducting a logically fallacious ad hominem argument.

This thread should be about the public execution of an extremely high-profile and very highly rewarded shill-for-Israel. Someone who had decided he no longer wanted to support their lies, nor their wicked jewish-motivated mass-murder of the Palestinian people. Someone who mere days after he had made that public was killed.

It also should be about WHO ordered, planned, orchestrated and perpetrated that murder, and who is trying to misinform the public about it.
So it can be discussing the following:
— the blatant improbabilities and impossibilities of the official narrative;
— all the many proven lies of the close associates of the murder-victim;
— the strange, bizarre and suspicious behaviour of the close associates of the murder-victim, especially his widow.

Ignoring all that and concentrating on one podcaster is obfuscation.

Anyhow, have a happy new year.

You too.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
New generations are discovering that zionist jews ALSO orchestrated the JFK killing (Scott, look away now )