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.
Until I see evidence that a 30-06 was actually stuck in his spine, I will continue to believe it passed through. Just because a a friend who said he talked to a surgeon, doesn't mean that either he, or the surgeon, is correct.
I'm not going to take the word of 'some guy' when I could have a coroner's report. And even then, I'd rather look through what was found, rather than take the word of the coroner on their own conclusion. If I hadn't done that, I wouldn't be able to tell you that George Floyd's coroner was saying nonsense when he died of asphyxiation because there was no damage to the throat, and no damage to the neck, and no damage to the ribs, and no damage to the lungs. In fact, he didn't asphyxiate at all, he had damage to his heart from the drugs he was taking and his body wasn't processing oxygen correctly, or circulating oxygenated blood correctly. The evidence for asphyxiation was media reports outside of the coroner's investigation.
And yes, I can see an exit wound, it's where the blood from his carotid artery poured out. I can see an entrance wound in his front neck.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. looked very much like it should have been a clear pass through, I'm not even convinced that the path on video even would like up with bone.
Given the fencing post he had, there must have been some kind of spinal damage. Even if the bullet didn't hit his spine, the secondary cavitation would have been catastrophic.
Who are you going to believe? Schizo conspiracy theories or your own eyes?
I believe in science, shockingly. Not "The Science", but actual evidence and information. Followed by the fact that the simplest explanation is, more often than not, correct.
If a man is shot by a high powered round, and I find a high-powered rifle nearby with a spent casing in it, imma assume they're related.