Totally different theory on the shooting. I am no expert but it seems to be interesting
1 Like
I’ll say it one more time. You cannot capture bullets on video cameras…at least like this one completely orthogonally.
It’s simple math to work out why not. A “bullet” that is traveling at a deadly speed will appear as a 3"-4" smear even if shooting with an 8000 fps shuttered camera.
But at a 20 fps rate as described herein? A 2000 fps bullet, means a 2000/20 = a 100 foot long smear. Per frame.
Anything appearing as a dot on a 20 or 30 fps video is not a deadly object. Full stop.
11 Likes
Yeah watched that. Thought, wow, the zone flooding is going full frontal Bedevere:
“What floats?”
Bread!
Churches!
Gravy!
Very small rocks!
While the truth is the poor woman on Bedevere’s “larger scales.”
Hi Chris,
Could this explain why no one had blood on their hands, and “the handoff”? How the projectile might have been captured on camera?
The error is in calling it a projectile. For now it’s a UFO.
Here are some things that get captured like that on video:
-
insects
-
leaves either blowing about or falling
-
something kicked or dropped from the crowded walkway above
6 Likes
Sound could be muffled or amplified.
Just as the world had never had exploding pagers before, maybe we just haven’t known about advanced palm pistols. Maybe they’ve been used in other attacks, that aren’t high profile (in West). Who knows?
Which leaves us with having to look at other “data points.”
Thank you for your time.
Last one.
Assumption is the mother of all _____ ups.
And the perpetrators of this event are counting on (enough) people to make enough assumptions to obfuscate their involvement / actual plan. Tricking the media is usually their first goal.
And I remember reading some quote from someone - it’s very easy to trick the media. Not every reporter, but enough.
It’s worked for “them” for a long time.
…Some one also mentioned the recoil from a palm pistol 2000 fps+ gun, a trained shooter would handle that per Grok.
Micro shaped charge study
1 Like
Seems as though there’s five working "narratives:
- The official narrative, Tyler Robinson believed he needed to take out Kirk because Kirk was anti-trans and other than maybe some of his trans friends no one else was involved/had knowledge.
- Israel/Mossad the Jews because Kirk was starting to turn anti-Israel
- Involvement by the CIA and/or other shadowy US government “organizations” because Kirk was becoming more antiwar, anti-big corporation, anti-elite and anti-expert class and was becoming far more populace. With that his impact on younger people was soaring, particularly younger men and that might prevent a generation of brainwashing
- It was actually a far right/Nick Fuentes/Gropyer group believing Kirk was too Israel, too Trump and not conservative enough
- It was someone within his group/inner circle that had become jealous of his fame and wanted Kirk out of the picture.
Numbers two and particularly numbers four and five, which those are laughable, I think can be discounted.
I looked at a few more crack-boom timings for spaced sources. The rightmost corner of this octogon on top of the Sorenson center seems to fit the data (for reasonable velocities, still unknown). it looks like a shooter could remain hidden behind the octogon until right before the shot, shoot, then duck and egress onto the brown walkway (one level down) to the left of the octogon on the service side of the building. The question is, would he take a standing shot from there (prone would have no view), and even if standing, would he be able to see the target past the lip of the roof in front of him (or her, no disrespect to female assassins).
2 Likes
Isn’t it possible the cavitation could’ve caused the damage to some of the vertebrae? It seens plausible to me based on your shooter angle you discussed Chris.
Yeah, I’d wear a neck tie and a glove if I were to assassinate someone! But, he should be identified. Imho
Your theory will be tested since they recovered the bullet during the autopsy.
1 Like
The strap looks to us as a military type or gun strap. I wish I had the audio. They deep-sixed the video very soon after it was posted on Instagram. As in the JFK assassination, there were 2 directions, 2 different assassins killing him. Look, this man is just very suspicious looking. He could be a foreigner. He also could have slipped out of the clothes he had. The bag on his back is BIG one and could easily carry a sniper rifle. He also could have been a back-up shooter in case the first shot didn’t hit Charlie. JMHO. I hope somebody can identify this man, if he hasn’t already fled the country.
4 & 5 I think need to be thrown out. Time-wise it is more likely it is #2, and that key figures in the CIA & FBI knew Israel was going to kill him and covered up locally and nationally.
1 Like
True. Yet, I wonder why NOBODY seems to think the likely place the bullet would have exited, and that would be the area where blood was gushing out.
2 Likes
Nope. There’s no line-of-sight to the tent from anywhere in the octagon. This video makes that abundantly clear (cued to relevant timestamp):
He really does need to have come right to the edge of the roof in order to see over the heads of the crowd and have a clean sight of the target in the tent.
That’s what makes this such a head-scratcher; I just can’t figure out where the real shooter was.
Where’s the camera that was taken down behind him? Why was it removed? Why didn’t the police step in to stop the dismantling of the crime scene? His security team should have known better.
2 Likes
FYI:
One of the most famous recent cases was Samsung Galaxy Note 7 in 2016. It was recalled and eventually discontinued because its lithium‑ion batteries were overheated / caught fire / even exploded. WIRED+3Wikipedia+3CBS News+3
To go into some detail:
- The Note 7’s batteries had design/manufacturing defects: in some units the negative electrode was bent (battery cell too tight in its casing), in others the welding was poor, causing separators between positive/negative parts to fail.
- The issue was serious enough that there were two recalls, and in October 2016 Samsung permanently discontinued the Note 7.
Some notes:
- Galilei was concerned about if bigger animals can jump relatively higher.
(Reference: Prof. Walter Lewin, MIT) https://youtu.be/GtOGurrUPmQ?t=665
(sorry, this is just the size of animals - someone else must have spoken about jumps) - Insects can jump way higher, but not by muscles. Here is the trick:
- There are sport suits.
Sport stimulation suits (often called EMS suits, for Electrical Muscle Stimulation) are wearable devices that use controlled electrical impulses to activate muscles during workouts. These suits deliver short bursts of low-frequency electrical current, typically around 60–90 volts DC, to mimic the natural signals sent by the brain. This enhances muscle contraction, making workouts more intense and efficient — often in shorter time.
They’re used in fitness, rehab, and even professional sports to improve strength, endurance, and recovery. The system is usually controlled via an app or built-in controller, and the suit has embedded electrodes aligned with major muscle groups.
So my final answer: muscles cannot do so big expansion.
In many small animals, muscles alone can’t contract fast enough to produce the huge accelerations seen in their jumps — so they use mechanical tricks.
Key idea: spring / latch / power amplification
- Muscles have limits on power and speed (force × velocity, contraction kinetics).
- To overcome that, many insects use a spring-loaded mechanism: the muscle slowly deforms an elastic structure (like a cuticle, tendon, or specialized material).
- The elastic energy is stored, locked by a “latch.” Then when the latch releases, the stored energy is released in a very short time, giving very high power output (i.e. “power amplification”).
- This enables insects to jump very fast, with accelerations that exceed what the muscle could produce in that instant alone.
- Famous examples: fleas, froghoppers, planthoppers, click beetles, etc.
I never went to MIT — but sometimes I wonder: am I tea?
He talked about the same video with 20 frames/sec and 30 frames/sec - but no conversion artifacts. So he assumed both videos were extracted from a higer speed camera footage (at least 240 frames/sec).
By my mistake, first I heard 24000 frames/sec (that would be 1 inch), but I watched it again to clarify.
3 Likes