No, that wasn’t his posture at the moment of the shot. Each of the pictures below is one frame before the shot:
There’s a little slouching, but mainly forward, not rotational…so we still have the problem of how the bullet managed to dump into his body cavity…assuming that’s what we saw.
A 10 degree angle, poorly mocked up by me for the video, coupled to the ballistic gel penetration data, strongly suggests that BY FAR the most likely outcome is a through-and-through.
You dismissed the possibility of body armor in one short paragraph, without any discussion of photos or counterarguments. I don’t know whether he was wearing armor or not, but the matter isn’t nearly as clear as you make it out to be.
What is the source of that photo? It shows only his back.
Body armor is addressed with what you can see under the shirt prior to the gunshot. You can see Kirk’s chest nipples demonstrating no body armor.
Thank you, I suggest including this in the next video as it was the biggest thing for me getting in the way of your hypothesis.
Good grief. Here’s my simple request. Please watch the presentation before making observations about it. I address this sufficiently to dismiss it.
If you’ve got different evidence, bring it. Don’t show up and tell me I haven’t satisfied your puzzlements when you are clearly too lazy to even watch the video.
Unless your purpose is to waste time, you’ll find that approach doesn’t last very long in these forums.
Sometimes it has bad days and very stupid.
What happens to the Mach cone - after the projectile hit the target? It won’t disappear.
Butler PA
scroll down for more pictures here:
Recently I work on the wave propagation - incorporate Green’s function into Huygens-Fresnel. (Preserve thin layer wavefront source, but introduce Hamiltonian phase space = location and velocity.)
the 4-gradient:
du/dt is complex phase
du/dx is wave number, k-vector
Kirk shooting: people turned their heads
(un)fortunately I was never shot, never heard the Doppler of the projectile.
(However, when I was hit by a car, I had to call ambulance for the driver.)
Will do. In the meantime, here’s a few slightly more accurate attempts to resolve the 10 degree path:
Again, be sure to keep in mind that the wound we see is very off-axis, so don’t accidentally interpret the red line as passing through the spinal column.
I did watch the entire video, you didn’t address body armor in any detail. Have you watched Paramount Tactical’s videos, which address the question in its full complexity?
No, not all chest armor covers the nipples.
Hi Chris, this made for interesting “scenario” setting re discussion of electronic drone counter measures at the scene on the day - Drones Over Charlie Kirk's Murder? Did Aerial Surveillance Lead to Kirk’s Assassination? | Redacted
“A leading security expert has claimed that he told Charlie Kirk he would ‘100 percent be killed’ at one of his university speaking events.”
I don’t take claims as facts. It might (I don’t say it is) be like Netanyahu claiming all kind of things about their relationship after Charlie died.
I didn’t know there was body armor that wouldn’t cover as high as the chest nipples. If that were the case, wouldn’t body armor be irrelevant to the entry wound and to the science/ballistics of Chris’ video?
There is such body armor, see Paramount Tactical’s YouTube videos.
The point is that the bullet could hit body armor and deflect up into the head.
Any chance you can provide an example of body armor like this?
See Paramount Tactical’s videos on YouTube, he’s gone into this in detail.
That’s not going to fly here. If you’ve got sections you think where Gary makes the definitive case, feel free to screenshot and post them, or provide exact timestamps and links.
I’ve seen Gary’s videos and he absolutely does not account for the fact that we cannot see any body armor ever except in a couple of single frames where it might be possible for an oddly shaped piece of titanium body armor to be technically hiding. But then, in the next frames, there’s no such outline.
And he absolutely does not account for the complete lack of seams, straps, bulges, or even the hint of fabric across Charlie’s back area.
Personal request to the well intentioned questions.
If you have a question please be as specific as you can.
Eg. In (link to video) at (time code time) I saw (specific description), which seems to conflict with (specific spot in cmartenson’s video) where you said (specific claim said). Can you explain the difference?
Given the level of detail that cmartenson does in his research, I’d much rather receive the benefit of his greenfield research than fielding generalized questions.
All the effort saved by asking in shorthand isn’t actually saved. It’s being piled onto someone else. Please do not do this.
Thanks.
@cmartenson Start playing this video at 19:00. A few seconds later, several people in respond to the shock-wave and less than a second later, you hear the crack.
Someone’s going to have to slow down the video to get a better estimate of the delay between the dark-haired young man’s shudder (presumably from the shock wave and the crack from the muzzle. It would also be good to have a rough estimate of the delay between a college aged person feeling the shock wave and visibly shuddering. Really rough: 3000 ft/s bullet - 1100 ft/s sound = 1900 ft/s. About 0.4 second delay (perhaps longer allowing for reflex delay) = 0.4 x 1900 = 780 ft (or more) distance from gun to the young man. That seems too far, as there are no possible shooting positions from 260 yards away.
