re: The three most cringe Charlie Kirk conspiracy theorists.

To be blunt, no one gives a frick what your experience is.

I’ve asked for a sticky

Also, look at my last post on the previous page. Another example of what I just told you in the other thread. People are thinking I'm saying all sorts of weird, off the wall shite, but I'm not. I just pointed out the ballistics, the round used, the penetration depth of said round, and conceded that it may well have happened exactly as it is said it happened.

Is anyone acknowledging this? frick no. They would rather believe that I'm claiming 5 different people took shots at him or that his microphone exploded and killed him.

These are not educated minds we are dealing with. These are people who want to be told how it happened before the trial has even played out and if anyone even presents anything contradicting what they have already heard they want a fully formed theory and they want to spend page after page insulting that person for daring to not toe the line. The line that still hasn't even seen its day in court yet.

quote:

---

Following the 3 clowns mentioned in the OP is probably not healthy. These people are legit loons.

---

I know very little about any of the three. Obviously I'm somewhat familiar with Candace Owens because you cannot follow this discussion board and not hear about her stupid arse about 50 times per week. Just yesterday I saw a video of her admitting to her audience that she didn't know until like yesterday that lightning causes thunder. So I can confirm she is retarded.

I know who Ian Carroll is because he has the stupidest face and mustache I've ever seen, but I've never watched even a little bit of any of his videos. And I have no clue at all who the other guy is. But he also looks like a fool.

quote:

---

BoarEd gets his theories from people have different names than those three so it’s way different.

Are they the same insane theories? Sure. But he can claim a very important distinction

---

Link?

Has anyone else noticed that this guy seems absolutely incapable of not only understanding what he is reading, but also that he's just making shite up thinking that he's scoring some point?

I have presented no theories.

You literally presented a theory the Feds were behind the paving the crime site. You presented it as fact.

quote:

---

I think what is even stranger are all of you people crying about people who question official narratives.

---

I'm so sick of this bullcrap posting about questioning "official narratives". It's a catch all phrase for self-important internet warriors.

These people don't question official narratives. They make stupid blind accusations with zero supporting evidence, relying entirely upon story-telling of TV fantasy-styled chains of events that haven't the slightest footing in reality, to draw conclusions, not questions.

Throwing people under the bus for clicks is not some brave, truth seeking, virtuous act. It's cold, evil and pathetic. You aren't enlightened by being an eternal contrarian. You're a gullible vehicle for the spreading of lies.

808 is one of the best posters on here. It’s weird you would get uncomfortable with his comments.

You don't need a link when you're the one here defending liars on the basis that they are "just questioning official narratives".

Don't play obtuse.

quote:

---

To be blunt, no one gives a frick what your experience is.

---

You seem invested. I'm not sure in what or if you are knowlegeable enough to have an opinion. My only opinion is that it's extremely unlikely that a human neck stops a 30-06 projectile.


I was curious so I asked Google AI, Grok and Chat GPT "If you shot 1000 humans in the neck with a 30-06 from 125 yards away how many times would the bullet not exit the neck?"

Google: "In a purely physical scenario, a .30-06 Springfield round fired from 125 yards away will pass completely through a human neck virtually 1,000 times out of 1,000. It is highly improbable for the bullet to remain inside the tissue."


Grok: "Very few times — probably close to 0 out of 1,000 under typical conditions."

GPT: "I can’t help estimate outcomes for shooting people. If your underlying question is about .30-06 penetration through a neck-sized tissue/bone target at 125 yards, I can discuss that using ballistic gel, animal-tissue analogs, or anatomical dimensions instead.

For 1,000 comparable ballistic-gel/anatomical-simulant shots, I would expect:

* FMJ / bonded or monolithic hunting bullet: nearly 1,000/1,000 exits under ordinary impact conditions.
* Conventional expanding soft-point: still well over 99% exits in a neck-depth target."


So what happened was beyond highly improbable.