Yeah, don’t let the 30-06 mislead you because that is what the narrative is spouting. That could be misdirection and time wasting misinformation.
Like Mongothespawn up above, I’m a reloader and just saying 30-06 only would limit you to case and caliber size ballistically. I will attach a photo showing the various bullets that I have at home to load into any 30 caliber rifle (.308 inches across the widest part of the bullet). A reloader could also change the power behind the bullet by using lighter loads of powder and/or different kinds. The ballistic
The photo also shows a 30-06 round next to a 223 Remington(.556 NATO). Just to throw in the size comparison. The individual 30 caliber bullets shown are 125gr, 150gr, 165gr, 180gr and 220gr round nose.
So what’s the point? Like Dr M said, more data is desperately needed to make real conclusions. We’d like to see bullet data, autopsy reports, etc. A light load has a better chance of terminating inside the target.
Just from deer hunting experience alone with the 30-06, their Robinson narrative just stinks to high heaven. That shot would have ripped right through that part of the neck and left a serious mess on the backdrop, even with a light loaded 30-06.
And by the way, hollow point expansion is more of a slow pistol caliber thing. The videos of the shooters blasting and capturing the bullet in ballistic gelatin is pretty indicative of what most rifle rounds do. Zip in, shock wave follows, bullet stops only when the energy is fully dissipated which, with flesh and bone, that means it hits a real solid bone.
Chris has a convincing theory. Some of the other theories are pretty good too.
But, until we have the autopsy results, all theories are just speculation.
The autopsy will answer all the questions about angles and calibers.
So why has the autopsy report not been released? The ‘authorities’ wouldn’t try to hide the truth from us, would they??
What!? No. They can change how the physical science of ballistics work throughout the universe and in Newtonian physics though. That’s well known. It’s called narrative The Science.
Particularly interested in rooftop running man, and where the video shows it starting from? Not corner of Losee building but out if thin air 20 yards away before he (or she) is seen “running behind the glass” before jumping. Like you said Chris , the footage has been altered (shadows / or lack of are proof) and taken with a Potato Cam. Same as Bigfoot footage. Wth is going on. Message sent if you would like to see video. Yes we cannot unsee. But you have tech team that might shed new light here. Lmk.
Thanks. Watched it. He still seems to think it came from the front, though from about 11 degrees instead of 9. I think it came from way left, like from 60-80 degrees. The reason I think this is because the entry wound is in the left side of the neck, and the bullet needs to burrow down into Charlie’s torso on the right side.
My placement of the sniper is roughly in the following zone:
However, I acknowledge that there are not many spots in this zone which can be squared up with what was captured in video footage of the event, while providing the shooter with adequate elevation to angle the bullet downwards.
Yes, a full autopsy was performed on Charlie Kirk by the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner. His cause of death was officially listed as a gunshot wound to the neck, which severed his carotid artery and jugular vein, leading to massive blood loss. The manner of death was ruled a homicide. The autopsy report confirmed there were no other significant injuries or contributing health factors.
As of today, September 27, 2025, the full and complete autopsy report has not been officially released to the public by the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner. Such reports are typically considered confidential medical records and are released only to next of kin and authorized law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation.
Statistician William m Briggs has interesting stuff to say on how to deal with conspiracy theories. That is. Come up with all evidence that does not support your theory and match it against the evidence that does.
I would like to see that kind of balanced analysis going forward.
Well, there is a complicated structure of walls, that might affect the echoes. Including constructive and destructive interference. Actually hard to simulate.
(However, I work on a wave propagation model which can replace the Huygens-Fresnel method by Green’s function, still preserving the thin layer source, but introducing the phase space of Hamiltonian mechanics. I sent it to a professor to review it.)
(Is it possible that Cullen/Goodman found a wave reflection? But reflections should arrive later, only after the original sound. However, it is possible that the original sound has destructive interference with anoter reflection.)
That is not autopsy report, just a certificate of death.
There is a distinct “buzzing sound” made by a super sonic bullet as it passes by the observer. This buzzing noise is heard first before the sound of the gun shot can travel to the observer’s location. There will be a change in pitch of the buzzing noise as it passes by because of the Doppler affect.
It is possible that some of the people at the front near Charlie heard this buzzing noise as the bullet passed overhead and it possibly could have been recorded on a video.
These Accelerator sabots can still be bought online.
The whole affair has the same ‘feel’ as Butler PA. Probably planned by the same people and quite possibly a warning to Trump to stay in line, as much as anything else.
Taking out a sitting President would be difficult and risky for the perpetrators (though not impossible, it’s been done with JFK) whereas you can essentially ‘execute’ prominent allies in a very public manner somewhat more easily, in order to exert pressure on him.
When we get to the end of this very long Cohen brothers movie do we get to hear Marge Gunderson say “and it was all for a little bit of money?”
Have we all been living in a simulation since 1963?
It could be some misunderstanding. The bullet itself does not make sound like an ambulance car. It makes a shock wave only. And you can hear that only once, when the Mach cone passes through you. There is no Doppler effect in this case.
Short answer
The loud “crack” you hear from a supersonic bullet is a shock wave / Mach cone sweeping past you (a one‑time pressure jump), not a Doppler shift of a continuous tone.
Doppler effect can apply to sound from a moving source, but it’s conceptually different and usually not what creates the sharp supersonic “crack.”
Why the shock is not Doppler
Doppler: moving source → gradual frequency shift of emitted waves (f′ = f·(c/(c ± v)) for simple cases). It applies to continuous tonal sources (siren, whistle).
Supersonic projectile: the projectile outruns its own sound. Instead of a stretched/compressed sinusoidal wave, the wavefronts coalesce into a single strong discontinuity (shock). The observer experiences a short high‑amplitude N‑wave (pressure jump), not a continuous frequency sweep. That makes the sound “crack” or “snap,” not just a pitched Doppler swoop.
The shock cone sweeps past an observer once as the bullet passes — that single sweep produces the crack.
However
Where Doppler can appear: if the projectile produces continuous aerodynamic noise (whistling or resonance), that continuous tonal noise would suffer Doppler pitch shift as the source moves relative to the observer. So if people described a “buzzing” tone that changes pitch as it passes, that could be Doppler acting on an aerodynamic whistle or on resonant vibrations of the projectile — not on the shock that causes the crack.
You’re right that a moving sound source shows Doppler. But the sharp supersonic ‘crack’ is a shock wave (Mach cone) — a one‑time pressure jump — not a Doppler pitch sweep. However, a supersonic bullet can also produce continuous aerodynamic noise (a ‘buzz’ or whistle) and that could show a Doppler pitch change as it passes. Whether the recorded sound is a Doppler‑shifted whistle or just the shock/minor muzzle‑blast depends on the geometry and the bullet’s aerodynamics.
My explanation for the entrance wound seeming ‘too large’ is because that area of the neck rather violently ballooned out and even ejected a bit of material (blood?) onto his t-shirt where it was heaved up to the neck.
So imagine an entrance wound with a huge back pressure … perhaps it ‘blew out’ a little and maybe even avulsed a bit?
For sure my explanation for that dot of blood on his t-shirt has improved and I feel comfortable with the back-pressure idea. It bothered me for a while because there’s no way blood is going to present at an entrance wound in a tenth of a second like that(above image is 4 frames after being shot).
Next, the angle isn’t perfect because the drone is a bit high (8 feet?) but I do believe there’s a shooting angle here at the edge of the Sorensen building.
Quote Alex Krainer
If you investigate any crime, you ask yourself: Who has the means? Who has the motive? Who had the opportunity?
When you ask this, Israel comes up as a suspect. So, it’s legitimate to ask this.
Here’s another interesting pattern:
Quote Ken McCarthy, author of ‘JFK and RFK’s Secret Battle Against Zionist Extremism: The Documentary Evidence.’
Who gets assassinated?
Someone with a big following. If you have no following, they’re probably going to leave you alone.
If you’re going through a change or some kind of evolution. and
If that change is a huge challenge to a very powerful force.
