@Dagnar@Humpleupagus@Dudebro@Electronwarrior@chanon Not sure why you'd think that my suggestion about clearing a crime scene in a highly trafficked area after 5 days, after finding the single shot fired, recovering the casing of the shot fired, having the video of that shit being fired, and the accused admitting he did it, but maintaining a piece of physical evidence in a bag at a lab would only be something a bong toker would suggest.
Like I said, we don't cordon off areas when some nigger pops a gang rival until his defense attorney properly examines the crime scene, either.
What was my original reply in response too? Maybe you should take another look at the thread.
I'll spell it out since you have the iq of a nigger.
My reply was in response to someone stating that they thought people who believe the conspiracy theories were stupid, including those who believed the mic exploded.
I mention in passing that he forgot to mention the repaving, which did destroy evidence probative of such a theory. I'm not wrong here. This is legally certain.
You then joined and started posting like you get paid by the idf. Go kill yourself.
@Humpleupagus@Dagnar@Dudebro@Electronwarrior@chanon Again, nothing is being done that is in any way out of the ordinary. And, the state is doing just fine making their case. If the defenses believes in an alternate theory about what happened that day, they are free to present it. What do you think, specifically, us lost by paving over the scene 5 days later, that can't be discovered some other way?
I'm in the camp that thinks what I saw was in no way the result of a 3006 to the neck. Yes I shoot animals, yes that makes me an expert, and no i don't give a fuck what anyone elsr says lel😀 🔫
Charlie Kirk was not JFK, and Oswald said he was a patsy and did not turn himself in. Oswald didn't tell everyone he knew that he shot the president. And, there is no video of Oswald shooting Kennedy. How long was Kennedy's (the President of the United States) crime scene secured for?
@Electronwarrior Fragments were presented in court. If you're taking the position that the evidence in court isn't credible, then you're not leaving much left to talk about, and you can't really make a persuasive argument if the conversation is over. @FreeinTX@Humpleupagus@ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro
@Humpleupagus@chanon@ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@Electronwarrior Dude, you're the one being disingenuous here. No one is saying that just because evidence is presented, that makes it true. However, this is nothing more than a probable cause hearing and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is probable cause to move forward.
The defense is more than welcome to raise the idea that paving over the area was part of a scheme to hide or destroy evidence. And, if they can add to an alternative version of events to make a plea bargain or get an acquittal or hung jury, more power to 'em.
@Humpleupagus And I never even commented on your point of preservation of evidence. I don't know enough about CSI procedures to have an opinion on that. Yet you call me retarded. Yeah, what the fuck is wrong with me, right? @ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@Electronwarrior@FreeinTX
I think one of the general premises of dissent on this is that there is at least one cover up. Either implied or explicit. If you understand that, then making what is tantemount to a circular reference as qualification becomes a bit disingenuous.
@ProfessorBalls And that's a different topic. I'm getting dogpiled because I said exploding lav mics was retardation. You agree with me that he took a bullet. What kind of bullet, who fired the bullet, and why they shot him is sensible discussion. Exploding lav mics is retardation. @Humpleupagus@Dagnar@Dudebro@Electronwarrior@FreeinTX
Look I only read the first line bc it looked boring as fuck. I have nothing against you, and wush you well. It's not a different topic, and my post makes the connection for you. You dumb niggers keep missing the part where i said i don't give a fuck what any of you think tho.
@Dagnar@Electronwarrior@Humpleupagus@ProfessorBalls@Dudebro@chanon But that wouldn't produce the hypersonic crack. Even if it was a 30.06 projectile, it's the barrel of a rifle that allows the gas expansion to accelerate that bullet to hypersonic speeds to generate that crack.
If a 30-06 round hit him in the neck, no fucking fragments would be found in his neck. The back of his neck would be gone with a six inch hole in its place, and that 30-06 projectile would be embedded in the first block of concrete it found behind him.
@UnCL3 You would have to prove that it's impossible, not just that it's improbable. Everyone already agrees that no exit wound is surprising. But there are cases from WWII of necks stopping 30-06 and 7.62x54r, and those would have definitely been FMJ. @Humpleupagus@ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@Electronwarrior@FreeinTX
I would expect a MASSIVE exit wound from a 30.06. Watching the video, Charlie didn't even seem to understand he was shot. 30.06 will leave A LOT of damage. I still can't wrap my head around what I saw supposedly caused by a 30.06 round. No way. I shot this at around 70 yards with a .308; you're looking at the exit wound. Same weight bullet (180gr), and quite a bit less powder/velocity. Make it make sense.
I hold you to your own standards. Every time I do, instead of meeting them, you just level insults. You're so fucking jewish that you could probably suck the foreskin off of a horse.
@Humpleupagus I've said it a million times, but here it is again: a bullet makes supersonic crack and no debris cloud. An explosive doesn't make a supersonic crack and does make a debris cloud. In the video we don't see a debris cloud, and we hear a supersonic crack. The evidence is before you and you're either too obstinate or too stupid to recognize it. @ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@UnCL3@Electronwarrior@FreeinTX
I analyzed the audio, and it's not a "hypersonic crack". It's looks like something more akin to a standing wave amplitude peak. But you don't know how sound works, because you have a pussy.
@Humpleupagus@chanon@ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@UnCL3@Electronwarrior Dude, it was clearly a hypersonic crack, and 2000 people all heard it. Hypersonic crack means a barrel was used to propel a projectile past the speed of sound. There is no other reasonable explanation for that crack.
No! A lav mic cannot reproduce this unless you believe Charlie wore a lav mic with a barrel pointed at his neck, and that a 30 caliber hypersonic round was fired from that lav mic.
The bullet jacket fragment and the 4 pieces of lead in his neck means that there was a bullet. The bullet was determined to be .286-.301 inches, range due to deformity. The shell casings were .3006 Springfield Corelocks, designed to rapidly expand and expend their energy into the target. The jacket showed it went through a 6right rifle twist.
I'm not sure why you're dedicated to another theory, but the idea that anything other than a 30 caliber hypersonic round was fired with a rifled barrel is utter nonsense. And, you have absolutely nothing to substantiate that claim.
@Humpleupagus@ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@UnCL3@Electronwarrior@chanon You couldn't have possibly "analyzed the audio" to determine that the shot was not a hypersonic. Now, you're straight up and blatantly fucking lying. The audio that has been made available to the public was taken with cell phones. The mics on even the best phones will be clipped. So, enough of your bullshit.
There was no audio in the evidence admitted in court, but the senior most officer at the UVU police department testified that he and a fellow officer knew immediately that the shot came from a rifle because of the sonic crack that he testified to hearing.
Look. I'm an expert audio engineer. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Maybe spend a few decades behind a console and then we can talk.
@Humpleupagus@ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@UnCL3@Electronwarrior@chanon What audio? There was no audio of the shot introduced at the hearing. But yes, a recording of a hypersonic rifle shot taken by a cell phone would not provide any useful information for analysis in determining caliber. The hypersonic crack would clip the recording.
You could argue that the full clipping of the audio would have to be the result of a hypersonic crack, or an incredibly loud shot, tho.
tfw you look at a poast, don’t scroll up, and think “‘compression’? is that some kind of new jewish way to shave gold coins?” but it’s just sound nerds
Again. If it can't be ruled out, it can't be definitively ruled in. Do why don't you tell your co-fag that the audio is inconclusive instead of arguing with me?
Well, if that's true, you've proven that you're a disingenuous fucking liar because you'd know damn well that a cell phone recording couldn't be used to rule out a hypersonic crack like you just fucking tried to do. Were you hoping that we wouldn't know about audio clipping or wut?
2000 people, living in UT, and were there to see a conservative talking head argue with liberal college students about abotion, troons, and guns, They all heard the crack. They all know it was a rifle. None of publicly question the rifle crack. None of them. Rifle crack = barrel. No other reasonable way.
We don't have to eliminate the possibility of cloaked extra terrestrial time travels sent back from the future to stop John Connor.
You might want to read your own source and not bastardize English by using reasonable in a manner that Webster defined due to bastardized use. You may want to look deeper into how Webster chooses its definitions.
Tl;dr you're a troglodyte who believes their grunts have meaning because someone wrote their grunt in a book. You're basically a nigger, but don't know it.
The root is actually re- which means given to the mind, a ray of light, which is a variant of ar-, meaning to be / bring together. It is given over, it doesnt originate in the person. But this is really beyond the IQ of caveman.
The idea that anything other than a 30 caliber projectile fired by a rifle killed Charlie Kirk is not reasonable. And reasonable is not anything capable of being reasoned.
What you seen to miss is that something must be reason-able for reason to be applicable to it. The ancients conceptualized this in the logos. Kant would later cement this back into germisnic thought via the transcendental aesthetic. But again, this is beyond your capabilities.
You can try to twist the definitions of words all you want. That shit isn't reasonable. And no, the definition of reasonable, is not to be interpreted as any fucking thing that you can reason, while suggesting that a bomb went off and everyone in the crowd is suffering from a mass psychosis delusion. That's not reasonable.
@FreeinTX@monsignor_dickface@Humpleupagus@ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@UnCL3@Electronwarrior@chanon He’s a lawyer and he’s calling out arguments people are using in much the same way a lawyer would. As far as I understand it, something can appear air tight to us (from evidence we’ve seen) and our understanding of the components involved (that we’re aware of), but that in and of itself is not an argument. Reasonable doubt standard is a thing, which means anything that can potentially add doubt or muddy the water makes a “this is clearly what happened” type of accusation harder to nail down in court. One could go through the list of what you are saying and come up with responses tit for tat, and it’s frustrating but it’s how our legal system works
@Humpleupagus You don't even know what you're looking at there. The waveform is a total red herring. You haven't been shot at enough, and it shows. Luckily for you, you can get a taste without actually getting shot at. I recommend Garand Thumb on youtube. He has a few where me lays behind a berm and records as people fire over and into the berm with various calibers. @ProfessorBalls@Dagnar@Dudebro@UnCL3@Xenophon@Electronwarrior@EvilSandmich@FreeinTX
The wave form is what will be entered at trial. Calling it now. Each party will hire audio experts to analyze and call witnesses to authenticate everything from the recording devices to the software used and opinions regarding the form itself. I know you hate actual evidence, because it inconveniences your npc trust me bro bullshit.
The waveform you posted looks more like a whomp..whomp-whomp-whomp, not a gun. But it's hard to tell when it's been through a PA system with its noise and feedback cancellation, and bounced off a crowd and a bunch of buildings. The audio recordings from the Butler PA Trump rally all looked different, depending on the location of the recording device. Some were sharp cracks, some had the added 'zing' of a corrugated metal building reflection, and others were smeared by the sound system.
Anyhoo, I think CK was shot from up close, with a low velocity bullet, and that sound is whatever was broadcast by the PA system.
Ypu saw Tyler? Must have been an amazing camera. Did you see him carry a 3ft ling rifle in his pants? Then in a backpack, then fully assembled in the woods
@Xenophon@Humpleupagus@ProfessorBalls@not_br549@Dagnar@Dudebro@UnCL3@Electronwarrior@chanon@EvilSandmich Yes. I see Tyler roll into the roof, cross it, lay down, fire a shot, get up, run across the roof and jump down. Then, run off into the woods. It was your average 2025 mid sized university campus security camera. And yes, you CLEARLY see him carrying a 3 foot long rifle in his pants. And, I see the rifle wrapped with the same towl that it's wrapped in as he runs into the woods, after jumping off the roof, leaving a shoe Imprint that matches his shoes. Then, you see him come back later that night to try and retrieve it, while he's texting his boyfriend about what he did.