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.