Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

Have a lookin YouTube lots of hunters out there questioning where he was shot from, they are saying he was shot through the back of his head due to the exit wound which would mean the guy they got didn’t do it.
 
Blue Maverick said:
Have a lookin YouTube lots of hunters out there questioning where he was shot from, they are saying he was shot through the back of his head due to the exit wound which would mean the guy they got didn’t do it.
Click to expand...

I would have given more consideration to a conspiracy if they could have pinned a more extreme left political reason for the shooting. Maybe in the US what they've found does enough, but just sounds to me like a guy who was more liberal and didn't like Charlie Kirk. I'd have expected the shooter to be found with a poster of Lenin and an "I hate Jesus" t-shirt for there to be any conspiracy.
 
Blue Maverick said:
I watched a video yesterday which showed the guy asking Kirk just as he was shot, I swear blind you can hear two gunshots.
Click to expand...
That's the bullet shockwave, you hear the shockwave from the bullet first and then the muzzle shot. The guy was supposedly only around 200 yards away so it's close enough but also far away enough to hear both.
Blue Maverick said:
Have a lookin YouTube lots of hunters out there questioning where he was shot from, they are saying he was shot through the back of his head due to the exit wound which would mean the guy they got didn’t do it.
Click to expand...
This isn't credible because the shockwave hits Kirk from the front, it looks like he was hit by a train and he rebounds backwards and not forwards. This wouldn't happen if it was from behind.

The bullet was apparently the type of round that is designed to fragment upon impact so unfortunately for him it stayed inside to do a lot of damage indeed.

The type of round is probably what actually killed him. A frangible bullet enters, splits apart and just well destroys everything in its path until it stops inside. A different type of round would go straight through and maybe the trajectory did miss key parts and he could have survived.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
That's the bullet shockwave, you hear the shockwave from the bullet first and then the muzzle shot. The guy was supposedly only around 200 yards away so it's close enough but also far away enough to hear both.

This isn't credible because the shockwave hits Kirk from the front, it looks like he was hit by a train and he rebounds backwards and not forwards. This wouldn't happen if it was from behind.

The bullet was apparently the type of round that is designed to fragment upon impact so unfortunately for him it stayed inside to do a lot of damage indeed.

The type of round is probably what actually killed him. A frangible bullet enters, splits apart and just well destroys everything in its path until it stops inside. A different type of round would go straight through and maybe the trajectory did miss key parts and he could have survived.
Click to expand...

Watch around 5 min mark when they slow down the video.
 
Blue Maverick said:

Watch around 5 min mark when they slow down the video.
Click to expand...

This video supports what I said.

If you mute the video and forget what the guy is saying then this could easily be argued to be the shockwave from the bullet.

If the bullet came from the front then you'd expect the shockwave to appear from above given the shooter was on a roof and that's what you can see. It'd show as a millisecond disruption to the picture, there's no evidence of any damage to the tarpaulin behind which would happen with a shot from behind so it must be the shockwave.

This is the bullet moving with its shockwave from the Trump shooting. It's probably taken from much faster professional video footage rather than somebody's camera phone. It would be visible for less than a millisecond.

mills-3-mediumSquareAt3X.png
 
Prepare for arguments about this for the next 50 years. I expect somebody will bring a book out next week.
 
I watched a video that suggested he was hit in the chest, but had some sort of body armour on and the bullet has hit it and changed course up and out of the side of his neck.

Not the worst theory.
 
Nethermoor said:
I watched a video that suggested he was hit in the chest, but had some sort of body armour on and the bullet has hit it and changed course up and out of the side of his neck.

Not the worst theory.
Click to expand...
Except that pics show he was not wearing any armour.
 
Nethermoor said:
I watched a video that suggested he was hit in the chest, but had some sort of body armour on and the bullet has hit it and changed course up and out of the side of his neck.

Not the worst theory.
Click to expand...
His wife has said he wasn’t wearing any and some say you could see his nipples through his T-shirt, the video I saw of it, it does look like he has one on with movement of his tshirt.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
This video supports what I said.

If you mute the video and forget what the guy is saying then this could easily be argued to be the shockwave from the bullet.

If the bullet came from the front then you'd expect the shockwave to appear from above given the shooter was on a roof and that's what you can see. It'd show as a millisecond disruption to the picture, there's no evidence of any damage to the tarpaulin behind which would happen with a shot from behind so it must be the shockwave.

This is the bullet moving with its shockwave from the Trump shooting. It's probably taken from much faster professional video footage rather than somebody's camera phone. It would be visible for less than a millisecond.

mills-3-mediumSquareAt3X.png
Click to expand...
If only he didn’t have a super ear!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top