It is now proven almost beyond the shadow of a doubt that Charlie Kirk was not wearing any body armor. The attending sheriff, Erika Kirk, dozens of photographs showing the outline of his pectoral muscles and nipples, and front row witness statements all concur that he was just wearing a t-shirt.
The idea that he was wearing body armor was based on a few frames of Charlie's t-shirt jerking up, and a good faith attempt to make the FBI story make sense. But the most credible proponent of that theory, Paramount Tactical, admitted (before statements from Erika Kirk etc) that there was already a "90% chance Charlie wasn't wearing body armor."
For their part, Turning Point USA's version of the story, and the FBI's, do not mention body armor at all. The official version of the story is that the bullet didn't exit and was trapped under the skin of Charlie's back.
So what are we left with? The officially blamed weapon is a Mauser 98 firing a 30-06 round over less than 200 yards. A typical 30-06 round has a muzzle energy of 2,500-3,000 ft-lbs. That's enough to shoot through solid buckets of ice, cow bones, steel plate, and bear skulls. Conclusion: there is no way that a 30-06 round shot Charlie in the neck and did not exit.
The official story is provably false. So what really happened?
edit: Paramount also threw cold water on the idea of a frangible 30-06 round.
Oh yeah, so a human neck can contain 2,500 ft-lbs of energy without deformation? Keep in mind that if the bullet doesn't exit, the full 2,500 ft-lbs is absorbed, which would blow the tissue up like an exploding water balloon. I guess Charlie really was Kal-El Jr.
Pistol round or similar from the right side to the left by an unknown shooter. Exit wound on the left.
What is the evidence that makes that so unlikely? That a dark figure was caught running on a roof? That no gun was ever videotaped by any of the thousands of cameras on campus? That the FBI took a picture of a Mauser in a cardboard box (??) that they said was wrapped in a black towel? That the text messages were obviously written by a law enforcement agent in his 50s?
You're saying there's no possible way a bullet from that gun could ever lodge in his neck, no matter how unlikely. Didn't hit a bee and start deforming before his neck. Didn't hit body armor first. No possible way. Absolutely impossible even with multiple worlds theory of quantum physics. You're excluding every possible explanation even ones you haven't even thought of.
Come on. Dodging a bullet is impossible too, Trump did it.
In contrast I'm saying it happened. We saw him get shot. What improbable events happened to not have an exit wound, if that is even true, we may never know.
I've seen a video of the guy climbing down off the room after and he's clearly holding a long flat object the size of the rifle. Maybe that was a loaf of Italian bread he was bringing home for his furry? Have you by any chance been asking AI to confirm your theories lol.
Hitting a bee is negligible loss of kinetic energy. Multiple confirmations he wasn't wearing body armor. If you're going to invoke quantum miracles, I prefer the one where Charlie isn't even dead because he's simultaneously alive.
Extremely possible for a 21-year old kid to miss a shot, actually.
Setting aside arguments over silhouettes, that same camera angle also captures THE POSITION THE SHOOTER SHOT FROM. Why don't they release the part of the video where he gets into position and shoots?
Look how crazy your reasoning is:
Not what I said and what this tells me is you don't know what effect that would have, but to exclude all possibilities like you claim then you have know this.
Missing a shot is not dodging a bullet.
Rule of thumb, when you feel you can't address the point and have to sidestep it's because you know you're wrong.
Others say it looks like there was and the high tech body armor has NDA because they don't want their reputation ruined. Maybe, maybe not, but if you're to exclude all possibilities you have to know for a fact.
Why would you need to see the video if you already know what the answer is? Because you're presupposing your theory (that it was something else, but you don't know what) is true and then using a lack of evidence as evidence for it. That's just nuts man.
To say it wasn't this gun and bullet you can show what it actually was - you haven't - or you can prove there's no possible way it could be, and you haven't done that either.
More bees? You are completely incoherent. Come back when you're sober.