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.
My point stands….look at the guy arguing in the replies here under my comment. If you Point out obvious concerns with what the feds have said, the majority will just say you’re a retard conspiracy theorist and discount everything you say. Doesn’t matter what you say or how legitimate those points are, they will ignore every bit of it. At the same time I get it, there are some really stupid conspiracy theorists out there who buy into the most retarded theories possible. But when there are legitimate questions that need answers, like why the fuck did the Fed’s intentionally leave out the part of the video they released where the shooter takes the shot, and only release what came after the shot? There aren’t too many logical reasons why they’d do that UNLESS they’re lying about where the shot came from. We can’t ignore issues like that.
We all know government lies on a regular basis, we know they’re incredibly corrupt, we know they cover up serious crimes just like they did with the Epstein files literally a few hours after Charlie was killed, holding a vote to bury the Epstein files forever. We shouldn’t blindly trust a system that’s as corrupt as what we have, but at the same time, we have to be reasonable about the theories we entertain.