We're just asking questions man, we're just delving, we're just thinking critically, about Egyptian aircraft and lapel microphone assassinations and a secret murder squad of French legionnaires.
Another approach used is to deny that it actually happened. Following the mass shooting at Bondi Beach I received a link that led to an article claiming the whole thing was fake and set up by Israel to garner support.Many people are now very wary of MSM and don't know who to trust. I agree with your take but it is only part of a much bigger problem.
It happened. We watched it. We watched the people who lost fathers, grandparents , a ten year old, Holocaust survivors, an older couple who literally tackled the gunmen and were shot in cold blood. My heart is broken.
When you say "you watched it", were you literally there watching it? Or, you saw video on your computer screen, and you believe you know what happened?
To be clear: I think it probably happened. I personally haven't seen any discourses, holding that the Bondi Beach shooting never happened. The conspiracy narrative I've seen, says it was a false flag.
You're right - "don't know who to trust". Maybe it's better that way. I now check as many sources as I can before I decide what happened. Even then I hold that decision loosely until additional information comes out.
I guess that's what easy money does to some people. I used to respect her opinion, heck she was even on my list of replacements if I actually outlived my wife. That has certainly changed.
I think these switches are worth looking in to. There are definitely a number of people who were very right in early stages of Covid insanity who have since themselves seemingly been driven insane by that particular collision of reality with two diametrically opposed theories of how we should live.
Would you care to comment on the actual substance of Candace Owens' findings? I used the word "findings" intentionally. I have watched all of her B. Macron videos and all of her Charlie Kirk videos. She does not present theories so much as FACTS. I find that method quite compelling. Do you dispute any of the FACTS that she has presented? We can disagree on what conclusions can be drawn from them, of course, but what about the FACTS. I see MSM commentators attributing conspiracy theories to Candace that she herself has NOT uttered. Those commentators are drawing their own conclusions, coming up with their own conspiracy theories, and then attributing them to Candace. THAT inversion I find quite fascinating. It's almost like they know the truth but they don't want the public to know it so they call it a "conspiracy theory" and attribute it to Candace.
Owens proposes that multiple people plotted in Kirk’s death, which is literally a conspiracy. That’s not necessarily bad in itself of course. There are conspiracies in the world.
Yes, there ARE actual conspiracies. In fact, the number of conspiracy theories in the world that have been proven to be conspiracy facts are too many to list. So Candace's many findings from seemingly different directions that appear to be converging point to coordination at very high multinational levels. Anyway, to answer your question, pick any fact reported by Candace. Any single one. Doesn't matter which one. Just pick one. I for one am tired of people calling her a liar who can't point to a single lie. Just allegations with no supporting evidence, exactly the opposite of what Candace does. Candace makes allegations of FACT and then backs them up with sources or actual receipts. She is much maligned for reporting pretty much nothing but FACTS. Gee, I wonder of that itself is the problem? Who out there does NOT want the FACTS to come to light??
It's strange how offended people are by her just performing her own investigation. Yes, she presents circumstantial evidence, but so what? Why is everyone so butt-hurt?
We shouldn't be disingenuous here. Owens is a provocateur, and she's good at it. That's part of her talent, and one of the reasons for her success. Innuendos that Kirk's associates may have collaborated in his assassination, casting suspicions on different foreign governments, and so on, will obviously anger people, and that's part of the point.
I recommend that you pay attention to the misinformation and disinformation coming from TPUSA, which Candace has called attention to. For example: regarding Charlie Kirk's belated change of heart regarding Israel; denials of Mikey McCoy's strange behavior; and denial of massive funding offers from Israel turned down by Kirk.
And furthermore, I've not seen any explanations of the Egyptian military planes following Erika Kirk in her travels. The narrative about those planes is factual and confirmed.
And in a perfect analogy to the JFK assassination, there is a magic bullet at the heart of the establishment narrative.
I find that curious too. I have my own theory, of course, about why certain people are so butt-hurt, but I would not want to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, so I will just leave it at that.
Ok, I will bite. She was 100% wrong about the Egyptian planes. Like not a little wrong, I mean completely wrong. The data was completely falsified. You can look up Kanekoa on x for more details but someone did bother to do screen shots and tracked the planes down.
Second, Tyler Robinson is not Spider-Man. He accessed the roof very easily by an outdoor stairwell.
I’m not anti/ conspiracy per say, but you do need corroborating evidence at one point.
I checked out Kanekoa and I don't see where he brought any receipts either. Where is his version of the spreadsheet?
I personally haven't purchased the FlightRadar24 data, but I do know that this has been carefully scrutinized elsewhere. Tucker Carlson said he verified it. Ian Carroll and Natalie Gray ('glamhamradio') have looked at the data and raised questions, but not found major errors such as Kanekoa claims.
And furthermore: (1) Kanekoa's claim that the conspiracy narrative rests entirely on the Egyptian planes, is obviously a red herring. (2) Stating that the roof was easily accessible by an outdoor stairwell, is another obvious red herring. Nobody said the roof was in any way difficult to get access to. Which is a rather obvious security hole, wouldn't you think?
Absolutely there are security holes- that is how he got shot. Absolutely it means between his security company and UVU security there are liability and negligence issues. But Tyler Robinson did it. Did he have help? Probably. Was he groomed online like Crooks? Probably. We need more info. But so as to not taint a jury, the prosecution will not be releasing that information, not for anyone, and not for Candace.
I've seen people mention the problem of "tainting the jury pool." But could somebody explain to me: when the POTUS has gone on national television and announced, with high degree of certainty, that Tyler Robinson is guilty -- how can the situation get any worse?
Are you on x? There are many videos explaining how erroneous the flight info is. I mentioned Kanekoa only because I follow him, he had some good stuff collecting data during covid too. He took screen shots of Candace’s flight info and ran it all down. The info is wrong. The planes were not in the places listed 66% of the time. Nobody can confirm where Erika’s plane was because she has not released that or whether she was even on it. It’s probably why Candace is now backtracking and her supporters are annoyed.
Eugyppius, while I am a big fan of your keen insight and political analysis, it appears that you have not done your homework regarding the Kirk assassination. Candace and others have indeed identified critical flaws with the official narrative. One key example: as anyone with a modicum of hunting experience knows, it is almost impossible (short of manufacturing defect) for a 30.06 round from 140 meters to hit a human neck and not leave an exit wound - that is an incredibly powerful shot that impacted his neck vertebrae and should literally have blown off his head. Don't take my word for it, just watch the myriad ballistics experiments on YouTube with ballistic dummy heads, pig legs, and cow vertebrae. Yet here we are with Kirk being described as a "man of steel" (30.06 rounds go straight through 3/8" steel plate) or we have another JFK "magic bullet".
I shot a deer in the neck once with a Mauser .30-06 and the bullet failed to exit. It's just not convincing to me to say that a high-powered rifle round must always leave an exit wound. That's not the case in human experience with guns. And there are other imponderables too.
I’ll concur, I’ve seen multiple deer shot with exactly the same model Mauser 30-06 and there is not always an exit wound. Exploding hams aren’t necessarily representative of all ballistic/target interactions.
Beyond that, what gets uploaded to youtube isn’t representative of what happens every time you shoot a ham. There’s zero interest in content showing that these bullets can be stopped y flesh and bone, and so nobody bothers to produce it.
I don't have that gun anymore, I just want to understand the claim here. Is it that no .30-06 has ever or can ever fail to exit a human or animal body at a distance of 140 meters? Does that seem remotely likely to be true? Then consider the whole question of powder loads, bullet composition, cartridge or barrel defects, other imponderables.
The alleged kill shot from the roof was taken from 140 m at 9 degree elevation and 9 degree offset from dead center. Even with light 110 grain cartridge loads, you are dealing with at least 2,000 ft/lbs of force in that round which cannot be stopped by a human neck. The Feds have the gun and can test for barrel defects. So with the standard of evidence, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" versus "1 in a million chance", the Feds have no case at all.
Yet, in practice, hunters not infrequently shoot animals with a .30-06 bullet and find no exit wound because the soft point bullets were stopped by bone.
The maddening part of reading this discussion is the inherent use/abuse of logical fallacy. Those making claims about bullets "always" having exit wounds and showing youtube videos of objects being shot for "proof" of said claim are really engaging in a burden-of-proof-shifting logical fallacy. It's akin to those claiming how the twin towers had to have been destroyed by controlled demolition because "steel cannot melt" and getting x number of architectural engineers to back up the claim.
The issue here is not the exit wound itself. The bullet has kinetic energy that has to go somewhere. If the bullet was completely stopped by his neck, all of the energy of the bullet had to go into his neck and this would have thrown him quite a ways. If the bullet had exited his neck, then he wouldn't have been thrown as much. This is not about blowing up hams spectacularly, it is simply about where did the energy go?
I've seen several videos in which experienced gun owners use 30.06 rifles at 140 meters, fired into various test targets. They are always demolished and blown to smithereens.
And on the other hand, I asked a neighbor who goes out hunting on a regular basis, and he said the same as you, that occasionally there's no exit hole when shooting a deer or elk.
I don't know whether his experience (or yours) proves anything: an elk is not the same as a human. I do know what the online video experiments show.
If you delve deeper, you find that the famous little snuff film of Kirk's death, shows the tiniest little entry wound; and furthermore, that the video seems to be faked, with that wound's position holding steady from frame to frame while the neck is moving underneath, and also there's a ring that moves from one finger to another on Charlie's hand as he is going down.
I'm not saying that Candace doesn't seem a bit crazy at times. For all I know, she might be an insider to the conspiracy. And from the quality of evidence available in the public domain, it's impossible to even prove definitively that Charlie Kirk is dead.
Whether there is an exit wound in a human/ deer/ elk depends on the angle of the shot, the amount of mass transversed by bullet, distance travelled by bullet and cartridge load. In the case of Kirk, the trajectory of the alleged kill shot from the roof only 140m away transected the neck at a 9 degree elevation and 9 degree offset from dead center, so the bullet had no more than 7" of mass and (fragile) neckbone blocking its trajectory - so 99.99%+ probability of exit wound.
At the risk of descending into the weeds, it would only hit a vertebra if it hit the middle of his neck. I thought it was more off to one side, and severed an artery or something.
I saw a number of tweets and videos by "experts" that presented all kinds of conflicting opinions.
(Not addressing the exit wound at all, and not interested in getting mired in a discussion about it.)
Ok I agree with most of this. But the reason such theories take root and gain traction is that there have been so many lies. The JFK Assassination was the big one. After hearing a member of the Kennedy family talk about that, I spent a weekend reading and watching and yes, it is extremely suspicious. Today even the MSM admits that Oswald was connected to the CIA.
Well, I'd say Candace is remarkably gifted at grifting for gold. Getting up every morning, ranting away with that wide-eyed gremlin affect and watching the bank balance go "ka-ching!" must be a very gratifying feeling.
But ain't it remarkable too how much deranged propagandizing spread around the globe when it had to be managed by guys in ships over the deep dark seas, or riding big sweaty hoofed animals through steppes and deserts? Are them interwebs just camels at the speed of light?
The part that bemuses me is the crowd hyperventilating with indignant fury over Candance and Megyn and Tucker et al, prefacing their X's with "what happened to [fill in here]" when it was pretty clear to me that these guys have always been idiots, though of the clever marketing types.
I guess for a lot of people it's entirely up to "whose side are you on today" rather than any other determinant of quality.
They're all opportunists. I'm pretty turned off by anybody who does much self promotion (Malone, Berenson.) So much so that it was mildly startling when eugy, in a recent article, had one line encouraging paid subscriptions.
Snake-oil salesmen, not really worthy of attention. (Not eugy, I hasten to add.)
I turned a lot of people as you mentioned off over the last few years. I decided Owens was an idiot after she stood up for Kanye West. Similarly the people you mentioned. Something seemed off, I think it was the Holy Spirit and removed them.
Encouraging paid subscriptions to a particular Substacker?
Something I've experienced from the beginning of my Substack journey is how often "friends of [any of several] blog[s]" have been of far lesser (all the way to zero) value than the recommender. But people have very many varied reasons for liking someone. and they very rarely get to see how that person they have a personal or collegial relationship with treats little anonymous nobodies with the nerve to question something they say.
I think also, with everything people have endured throughout our perhaps never truly ending Plague Era, those were on the front lines first, at great risk, even if they're in many ways obnoxious schmucks or profiteers, have engendered a sort of decent loyalty in good people.
I have seen the name Candice Owens a few times over the past year but I have no idea who she is. Why are her ramblings of any interest. Why are the ridiculous comments by the Democrats and their influencers of any interest. Their complaints and accusations are so off the wall as to be unworthy of any interest.
All I have to say is I love it when I see Eugy in my inbox, especially when he writes about a wacky US commentator. I’m weary of all the conspiracy theories. But not weary of Eugy.
I totally agree with you. I don't know what happened to Candice. She used to be a reasonable person, and I enjoyed listening to her when she was with Prager U. Now she's just nuts.
I knew this day would come. Eugyppius has finally succumbed to the ZOG's mind control rays. He's not thinking straight. He should try this new creatine supplement. Link below...
If I read, you right. I would agree it is uncontrolled free access media that is causing this. I was born in DC in 1939, lived there till 1965. Went through the Kennedy killings and all of that history and barely heard a conspiratory theory. I knew there were some around JFK and then Ruby but did not pay them much attention. This is just the latest version of yellow journalism. R Hurst would be very happy. Nothing in the world like Click Bait.
Every once in a while the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right- see Coof response, soldiers jumping out of the belly of a wooden horse in the dead of night, et al.
Another approach used is to deny that it actually happened. Following the mass shooting at Bondi Beach I received a link that led to an article claiming the whole thing was fake and set up by Israel to garner support.Many people are now very wary of MSM and don't know who to trust. I agree with your take but it is only part of a much bigger problem.
It happened. We watched it. We watched the people who lost fathers, grandparents , a ten year old, Holocaust survivors, an older couple who literally tackled the gunmen and were shot in cold blood. My heart is broken.
Problem is: sitting at my computer, there's no way I can tell whether you're a real person, or a chatbot.
True. But that goes for you too. I am real and totally heartbroken about a massacre in my state.
When you say "you watched it", were you literally there watching it? Or, you saw video on your computer screen, and you believe you know what happened?
To be clear: I think it probably happened. I personally haven't seen any discourses, holding that the Bondi Beach shooting never happened. The conspiracy narrative I've seen, says it was a false flag.
False flag meaning what in this specific instance?
You're right - "don't know who to trust". Maybe it's better that way. I now check as many sources as I can before I decide what happened. Even then I hold that decision loosely until additional information comes out.
Candace Owens is a libelous grifter.
I also think she has been blinded by her own success.
So, whatever happened to her claims about B. Macron?
She is being sued.
She's being sued by the Macrons, so probably staying mum on advice of counsel.
Not true. Her latest claim regarding the Macrons, is that they've taken out a $1.5 million contract on her life.
I guess that's what easy money does to some people. I used to respect her opinion, heck she was even on my list of replacements if I actually outlived my wife. That has certainly changed.
I think these switches are worth looking in to. There are definitely a number of people who were very right in early stages of Covid insanity who have since themselves seemingly been driven insane by that particular collision of reality with two diametrically opposed theories of how we should live.
> she was even on my list
> of replacements if I actually
> outlived my wife
You're part of her personal circle?
The trouble is, that it does seem the purpose of the legacy mainstream has always been to misinform and obfuscate.
Well, I grew up with Paul Harvey and Walter Cronkite. The news was a bit more believable then.
The believability was a facade.
Of course I was there.
Really? Were you there? I was.
Even that would be the prototype, loss-leader for the thing to come.
Pathe news for instance in the 20s is perfect to observe the obvious programming
Would you care to comment on the actual substance of Candace Owens' findings? I used the word "findings" intentionally. I have watched all of her B. Macron videos and all of her Charlie Kirk videos. She does not present theories so much as FACTS. I find that method quite compelling. Do you dispute any of the FACTS that she has presented? We can disagree on what conclusions can be drawn from them, of course, but what about the FACTS. I see MSM commentators attributing conspiracy theories to Candace that she herself has NOT uttered. Those commentators are drawing their own conclusions, coming up with their own conspiracy theories, and then attributing them to Candace. THAT inversion I find quite fascinating. It's almost like they know the truth but they don't want the public to know it so they call it a "conspiracy theory" and attribute it to Candace.
What facts would you like me to attend to?
Owens proposes that multiple people plotted in Kirk’s death, which is literally a conspiracy. That’s not necessarily bad in itself of course. There are conspiracies in the world.
Yes, there ARE actual conspiracies. In fact, the number of conspiracy theories in the world that have been proven to be conspiracy facts are too many to list. So Candace's many findings from seemingly different directions that appear to be converging point to coordination at very high multinational levels. Anyway, to answer your question, pick any fact reported by Candace. Any single one. Doesn't matter which one. Just pick one. I for one am tired of people calling her a liar who can't point to a single lie. Just allegations with no supporting evidence, exactly the opposite of what Candace does. Candace makes allegations of FACT and then backs them up with sources or actual receipts. She is much maligned for reporting pretty much nothing but FACTS. Gee, I wonder of that itself is the problem? Who out there does NOT want the FACTS to come to light??
It's strange how offended people are by her just performing her own investigation. Yes, she presents circumstantial evidence, but so what? Why is everyone so butt-hurt?
We shouldn't be disingenuous here. Owens is a provocateur, and she's good at it. That's part of her talent, and one of the reasons for her success. Innuendos that Kirk's associates may have collaborated in his assassination, casting suspicions on different foreign governments, and so on, will obviously anger people, and that's part of the point.
I recommend that you pay attention to the misinformation and disinformation coming from TPUSA, which Candace has called attention to. For example: regarding Charlie Kirk's belated change of heart regarding Israel; denials of Mikey McCoy's strange behavior; and denial of massive funding offers from Israel turned down by Kirk.
And furthermore, I've not seen any explanations of the Egyptian military planes following Erika Kirk in her travels. The narrative about those planes is factual and confirmed.
And in a perfect analogy to the JFK assassination, there is a magic bullet at the heart of the establishment narrative.
Maybe because nothing is beneath the cretin, like attacking Charlie Kirk's widow. But let me guess, she's just asking questions
I find that curious too. I have my own theory, of course, about why certain people are so butt-hurt, but I would not want to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, so I will just leave it at that.
Ok, I will bite. She was 100% wrong about the Egyptian planes. Like not a little wrong, I mean completely wrong. The data was completely falsified. You can look up Kanekoa on x for more details but someone did bother to do screen shots and tracked the planes down.
Second, Tyler Robinson is not Spider-Man. He accessed the roof very easily by an outdoor stairwell.
I’m not anti/ conspiracy per say, but you do need corroborating evidence at one point.
I checked out Kanekoa and I don't see where he brought any receipts either. Where is his version of the spreadsheet?
I personally haven't purchased the FlightRadar24 data, but I do know that this has been carefully scrutinized elsewhere. Tucker Carlson said he verified it. Ian Carroll and Natalie Gray ('glamhamradio') have looked at the data and raised questions, but not found major errors such as Kanekoa claims.
And furthermore: (1) Kanekoa's claim that the conspiracy narrative rests entirely on the Egyptian planes, is obviously a red herring. (2) Stating that the roof was easily accessible by an outdoor stairwell, is another obvious red herring. Nobody said the roof was in any way difficult to get access to. Which is a rather obvious security hole, wouldn't you think?
Absolutely there are security holes- that is how he got shot. Absolutely it means between his security company and UVU security there are liability and negligence issues. But Tyler Robinson did it. Did he have help? Probably. Was he groomed online like Crooks? Probably. We need more info. But so as to not taint a jury, the prosecution will not be releasing that information, not for anyone, and not for Candace.
I've seen people mention the problem of "tainting the jury pool." But could somebody explain to me: when the POTUS has gone on national television and announced, with high degree of certainty, that Tyler Robinson is guilty -- how can the situation get any worse?
WHAT about the Egyptian planes was she wrong about?
Are you on x? There are many videos explaining how erroneous the flight info is. I mentioned Kanekoa only because I follow him, he had some good stuff collecting data during covid too. He took screen shots of Candace’s flight info and ran it all down. The info is wrong. The planes were not in the places listed 66% of the time. Nobody can confirm where Erika’s plane was because she has not released that or whether she was even on it. It’s probably why Candace is now backtracking and her supporters are annoyed.
Eugyppius, while I am a big fan of your keen insight and political analysis, it appears that you have not done your homework regarding the Kirk assassination. Candace and others have indeed identified critical flaws with the official narrative. One key example: as anyone with a modicum of hunting experience knows, it is almost impossible (short of manufacturing defect) for a 30.06 round from 140 meters to hit a human neck and not leave an exit wound - that is an incredibly powerful shot that impacted his neck vertebrae and should literally have blown off his head. Don't take my word for it, just watch the myriad ballistics experiments on YouTube with ballistic dummy heads, pig legs, and cow vertebrae. Yet here we are with Kirk being described as a "man of steel" (30.06 rounds go straight through 3/8" steel plate) or we have another JFK "magic bullet".
I shot a deer in the neck once with a Mauser .30-06 and the bullet failed to exit. It's just not convincing to me to say that a high-powered rifle round must always leave an exit wound. That's not the case in human experience with guns. And there are other imponderables too.
I’ll concur, I’ve seen multiple deer shot with exactly the same model Mauser 30-06 and there is not always an exit wound. Exploding hams aren’t necessarily representative of all ballistic/target interactions.
Beyond that, what gets uploaded to youtube isn’t representative of what happens every time you shoot a ham. There’s zero interest in content showing that these bullets can be stopped y flesh and bone, and so nobody bothers to produce it.
For goodness sake, if you have a Mauser .30-06, then run the experiment yourself with 20" circumference ham roast! Also watch the YouTube video ballistic experiments by Chris Martenson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlEJuO0ZGEc&t=3101sv), and 1ShotTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUx2DA76po&t=2s), among many others.
I don't have that gun anymore, I just want to understand the claim here. Is it that no .30-06 has ever or can ever fail to exit a human or animal body at a distance of 140 meters? Does that seem remotely likely to be true? Then consider the whole question of powder loads, bullet composition, cartridge or barrel defects, other imponderables.
The alleged kill shot from the roof was taken from 140 m at 9 degree elevation and 9 degree offset from dead center. Even with light 110 grain cartridge loads, you are dealing with at least 2,000 ft/lbs of force in that round which cannot be stopped by a human neck. The Feds have the gun and can test for barrel defects. So with the standard of evidence, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" versus "1 in a million chance", the Feds have no case at all.
Yet, in practice, hunters not infrequently shoot animals with a .30-06 bullet and find no exit wound because the soft point bullets were stopped by bone.
The maddening part of reading this discussion is the inherent use/abuse of logical fallacy. Those making claims about bullets "always" having exit wounds and showing youtube videos of objects being shot for "proof" of said claim are really engaging in a burden-of-proof-shifting logical fallacy. It's akin to those claiming how the twin towers had to have been destroyed by controlled demolition because "steel cannot melt" and getting x number of architectural engineers to back up the claim.
The issue here is not the exit wound itself. The bullet has kinetic energy that has to go somewhere. If the bullet was completely stopped by his neck, all of the energy of the bullet had to go into his neck and this would have thrown him quite a ways. If the bullet had exited his neck, then he wouldn't have been thrown as much. This is not about blowing up hams spectacularly, it is simply about where did the energy go?
I've seen several videos in which experienced gun owners use 30.06 rifles at 140 meters, fired into various test targets. They are always demolished and blown to smithereens.
And on the other hand, I asked a neighbor who goes out hunting on a regular basis, and he said the same as you, that occasionally there's no exit hole when shooting a deer or elk.
I don't know whether his experience (or yours) proves anything: an elk is not the same as a human. I do know what the online video experiments show.
If you delve deeper, you find that the famous little snuff film of Kirk's death, shows the tiniest little entry wound; and furthermore, that the video seems to be faked, with that wound's position holding steady from frame to frame while the neck is moving underneath, and also there's a ring that moves from one finger to another on Charlie's hand as he is going down.
I'm not saying that Candace doesn't seem a bit crazy at times. For all I know, she might be an insider to the conspiracy. And from the quality of evidence available in the public domain, it's impossible to even prove definitively that Charlie Kirk is dead.
Whether there is an exit wound in a human/ deer/ elk depends on the angle of the shot, the amount of mass transversed by bullet, distance travelled by bullet and cartridge load. In the case of Kirk, the trajectory of the alleged kill shot from the roof only 140m away transected the neck at a 9 degree elevation and 9 degree offset from dead center, so the bullet had no more than 7" of mass and (fragile) neckbone blocking its trajectory - so 99.99%+ probability of exit wound.
Pretty sure your average deer has a bit more mass to blow through than your average 30-year old male, as well.
> should literally have
> blown off his head
And there goes your credibility. Generations of American deer hunters will contradict you.
At the risk of descending into the weeds, it would only hit a vertebra if it hit the middle of his neck. I thought it was more off to one side, and severed an artery or something.
I saw a number of tweets and videos by "experts" that presented all kinds of conflicting opinions.
(Not addressing the exit wound at all, and not interested in getting mired in a discussion about it.)
Likely we don’t have full facts with which to make an assessment.
Ok I agree with most of this. But the reason such theories take root and gain traction is that there have been so many lies. The JFK Assassination was the big one. After hearing a member of the Kennedy family talk about that, I spent a weekend reading and watching and yes, it is extremely suspicious. Today even the MSM admits that Oswald was connected to the CIA.
Well, I'd say Candace is remarkably gifted at grifting for gold. Getting up every morning, ranting away with that wide-eyed gremlin affect and watching the bank balance go "ka-ching!" must be a very gratifying feeling.
But ain't it remarkable too how much deranged propagandizing spread around the globe when it had to be managed by guys in ships over the deep dark seas, or riding big sweaty hoofed animals through steppes and deserts? Are them interwebs just camels at the speed of light?
The part that bemuses me is the crowd hyperventilating with indignant fury over Candance and Megyn and Tucker et al, prefacing their X's with "what happened to [fill in here]" when it was pretty clear to me that these guys have always been idiots, though of the clever marketing types.
I guess for a lot of people it's entirely up to "whose side are you on today" rather than any other determinant of quality.
They're all opportunists. I'm pretty turned off by anybody who does much self promotion (Malone, Berenson.) So much so that it was mildly startling when eugy, in a recent article, had one line encouraging paid subscriptions.
Snake-oil salesmen, not really worthy of attention. (Not eugy, I hasten to add.)
I turned a lot of people as you mentioned off over the last few years. I decided Owens was an idiot after she stood up for Kanye West. Similarly the people you mentioned. Something seemed off, I think it was the Holy Spirit and removed them.
Encouraging paid subscriptions to a particular Substacker?
Something I've experienced from the beginning of my Substack journey is how often "friends of [any of several] blog[s]" have been of far lesser (all the way to zero) value than the recommender. But people have very many varied reasons for liking someone. and they very rarely get to see how that person they have a personal or collegial relationship with treats little anonymous nobodies with the nerve to question something they say.
I think also, with everything people have endured throughout our perhaps never truly ending Plague Era, those were on the front lines first, at great risk, even if they're in many ways obnoxious schmucks or profiteers, have engendered a sort of decent loyalty in good people.
I have seen the name Candice Owens a few times over the past year but I have no idea who she is. Why are her ramblings of any interest. Why are the ridiculous comments by the Democrats and their influencers of any interest. Their complaints and accusations are so off the wall as to be unworthy of any interest.
Not worth knowing. A very silly young woman who should be shunned.
All I have to say is I love it when I see Eugy in my inbox, especially when he writes about a wacky US commentator. I’m weary of all the conspiracy theories. But not weary of Eugy.
Well said. A eugyppius email is always a joyous occasion.
Owens, Carlson and their ilk do not give a sh*t about the truth. Pure “entertainment.” Digital National Enquirer.
I totally agree with you. I don't know what happened to Candice. She used to be a reasonable person, and I enjoyed listening to her when she was with Prager U. Now she's just nuts.
She is a nut. But for real Mrs. Macron is suspect.
"Nothing to see here, folks. Move along!"
I knew this day would come. Eugyppius has finally succumbed to the ZOG's mind control rays. He's not thinking straight. He should try this new creatine supplement. Link below...
If I read, you right. I would agree it is uncontrolled free access media that is causing this. I was born in DC in 1939, lived there till 1965. Went through the Kennedy killings and all of that history and barely heard a conspiratory theory. I knew there were some around JFK and then Ruby but did not pay them much attention. This is just the latest version of yellow journalism. R Hurst would be very happy. Nothing in the world like Click Bait.
Every once in a while the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right- see Coof response, soldiers jumping out of the belly of a wooden horse in the dead of night, et al.
The view from down here in the moss is small, so your big-picture bird's-eye explanations are very illuminating.
Aside: I keep hearing the name Candace Owens, but now I know who she is and I'm glad I haven't wasted any time.
The medium is the message.