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.
The assassins were Salafi ISIS (which is, among other things, a Mossad-affiliated terrorist group in Syria) and they were able to shoot into the crowd for 20 minutes while there was no response from a nearby police station. Finally one of the shooters was tackled and disarmed by a bystander who happened to be a Muslim, and the police showed up to shoot the other one.
Israeli propagandists were quick to blame the incident on Iran, and call for war. And, Candace Owens predicted last November that there would be a false flag incident this week. Who knows, maybe she's on to something.
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.
She's always been like that. I followed her on and off for years. She'd pop up on my Twitter feed, retweeted by people I followed, saying interesting or funny or pithy things. After I saw enough of them, I'd follow her myself. And then she'd go off the rails about something and I'd unfollow her. A couple months later, the whole thing would repeat. I figured she was trying to find the wildest, edgiest take to get followers. When she was hired by the Daily Wire I was really happy for her--I thought she was really talented, and would settle down now that she was at a place she could concentrate on content rather than trying to promote herself, and she seemed to for a while. But she started going off the rails again long before this. I think she is mentally unstable and goes through periods of mania.
Whenever I see a case of "formerly rational icon goes nonlinear" like Owens or West (or dare I say Carlson?) I cannot help but be haunted by the memory of an SF/intrigue novel by Greg Bear named "Vitals." The plot (sorry, some spoilers) concerns a Soviet world domination plot, a Stalin-era version of MK-Ultra, but based on manipulative parasites (like toxoplasmosis, baculoviruses, the zombie-fly fungus) instead of drugs, and forcibly evolved and sophisticated over decades to the present day.
One of the characters was a respected professor of Soviet history who saw some documents he should not have, and as a consequence, the conspirators got him cashiered by giving him what could best be described as a case of antisemitic Tourette's. (The book was written when antisemitism was still considered disgraceful, not trendy, as it is now.)
"I have a defect in my character, put there by my father and grandparents. A little rip of tribal fear. We all have them. They pulled mine wide open... I am pariah. I am unclean, unemployable. The Jews have made sure I can't publish, can't teach." [He knows it is not the Jews, but the very characteristic of his disease is that it inserts such language for him.]
Obviously, I'm not claiming any such fantastic conspiracy. But the weird congruence of what is described in that chapter with what I observe going on almost on a quarterly basis these days haunts the hell out of me.
"I used to respect her opinion, heck she was even on my list of replacements if I actually outlived my wife." -- HA HA HA! Well she may be crazy, but she's still beautiful!
All women in broadcasting do that. It's a difficult question for women--men like to look at them, so they get jobs, but if the reason they got jobs is that they have a large bust, should they wear low-cut blouses, super tight clothes, and tight skirts on the air, or should they not? They usually do, and the ones in the USA are nothing compared to the Latin America. I was in Honduras a couple of years ago for the annual Feast of Our Lady of Suyapa, and there were women TV reporters all over the place--skin-tight dresses, incredibly high heels, and TONS of makeup.
It's more classy here, but the same thing. The famous (or infamous, depending on your view) Megyn Kelly used to come on the air in halter tops or tops with spaghetti straps. I don't know if she does it now, but the whole "the guy in charge of the network was a terrible sexist" schtick from a gorgeously toned woman in a halter top never worked for me. At least Candace has always worn clothes.
I can’t watch Candace Owens, and it is too bad because I knew her before she turned conspiratorial and antisemitic. She is an intelligent woman, but something happened.
And she is interfering with Charlie’s wife’s ability to grieve by talking about her +TPUSA.
My question about Charlie’s assassination was that there are possible accomplices given a recent Discord Chat including members that were part of the same community. I will probably be thinking about that for 60 years, just like JFK’s death. I had my theory but my mother yelled at me and told me I shouldn’t say such things( I was 10) never had a President die during school.
Candace has been more correct than not: BLM being a grift, Covid, and Israel’s retaliation against Hamas in Gaza.
She might be “just asking questions” but why isn’t the FBI doing this?
Why was Tyler Robinson’s legal team appointed by the judge, when a pro bono team had assembled to defend him? And why is one of the attorneys representing the shooter a relative of the TPUSA individual who removed the SD cards from the cameras, footage of which has never been released.
And if you think that’s strange, why were there searches for Tyler James Robinson from DC and Israel IP addresses in the days leading up to the shooting, not to mention searches for doctors and hospitals in the area from the same locations in July?
All seems odd to me, so I’m letting Candace and friends cook.
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.
What are the gyp's thoughts on watching the wifely unit Erika Kitk's live performances? Aside from all else it is the appearance of a person who never expected she'd have to act out a part, and is proving all kinds of inept at doing so, that arouses my real curiosity. (I( wouldn't go neat Ms Owens and her ilk, I think they're there to ensure you lose yr marbles)
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.
I trust Tucker on this one, as he has deep ties to the CIA and he seems very certain about this. Candace is just seeking reasonable doubt, which should be the focus of any investigation, private or governmental. If she hurts some feelings, too bad, such is life.
But of course it did. It still would, if you only watched TV today. You wouldn't notice any mismatches with reality because they aren't stupid and don't twist the truth too visibly on anything the viewers can directly observe.
Think about how many times supposedly prestigious institutions were caught faking things. The faked footage of Trump by the BBC and other European state media firms, for example. Now think how you learned about these events. It wasn't likely by watching those institutions themselves. You learned it through the internet. Without that alternative way to spread information, how would people have ever caught it if Cronkite and others were liars?
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.
Yes, bullets don't always perform as designed. My rule of thumb assumption is that every high profile crime investigated by the FBI is covered up and/or evidence forged even when the accused is obviously guilty. Sometimes the authorities frame the innocent, but more often they "frame" the guilty. It's just a nervous tick they can't seem to resist.
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.
Within a minute of the Kirk shooting, people were posting "Israel" on Twitter. Within a few days, I officially had Conspiracy Theory Fatigue. I no longer find them mildly amusing and I just want them to go away.
Everything is a conspiracy now because during covid and other mass retardations, our Rulers and their propagandists, and the managers, were proven to be so clever.
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.
I think she's a fair-weather blogger. She goes where she believes she'll make the most impact, thus the most money. I first heard her on FOX News around 2020 during the campaign. She was conservative, bright, quick, and well spoken. I thought she'd eventually have a shot at a national office as a GOP candidate. Then she moved on to the Daily Wire and became a bit more strange while talking about the birth of her baby and vaccines, the French President's wife, Megan Markle and Harry. She's a gossip and mean about it. I quit listening to her because it was like being in a junior high lunch room all the time.
But she really ticked me off with her comments after the Oct. 7th attacks on Israel, when it became clear she was anti-semitic. Since then, she's been entrenched in that stance, and her thoughts have been evil. The things she's assumed about Erica Kirk, TPUSA, and the people working for Kirk come from the mind of a deranged person. She's either mentally unwell or totally enamoured by the fact that her videos are garnering her so much money. I do know that she's met with Erica and may back off on some of her claims due to the possibility of future lawsuits.
There's a person on YT I've watched since the beginning of this event, Paramount Tactical (https://youtu.be/O6zFmbMmrWs?si=vtbxlWPgtDkSR0ud), who has done in-depth research on Owen's points, as well as the entire event, and shown what happened, why, what was done correctly, and what could be improved, from his point of view as a former service man with extensive knowledge and training. I think watching could help clear up many questions people have here. I know it did mine re: the 30.06, bullet trajectory, tissue damage, first aid given, hospital routes, the layout of the event, access to the event locations, escape routes, Kirk's security, campus security, and Owen's ideas, which he disputes point by point.
It's tragic to see the critical thinking and reasoning skills that have been lost to the inept educational system we have, the internet slop kids constantly watch, the mediocre TV crime and cop shows people view, and the lack of deep conversations people have with each other now. People generally seem much more stupid than they were 30 years ago.
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 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...
Having finished your article now, and stepping back from opining on specific quotes to take your whole post holistically, we are in alignment. In fact, we are so in alignment that I'm going to blow your mind right now, Eugy. You are exactly correct about Owens, but there's a much much more concise mental model you can use, that No Agenda figured out the other day
Do you know what genre of podcasting is, BY FAR, the most popular and subscribed genre of podcasting?
True crime.
What Candace is doing right now is becoming a "*REAL* True Crime" Podcast. By, of course, just making shit up, since nothings true or real online. But once No Agenda hit on this interpretation, it became obvious. She's brazenly pandering to the kinds of middle aged bored housewife women who listen to true crime podcasts and imagine elaborate criminal plots for excitement. And so, when you say this
> Asking whether any of these highly engineered and triangulated proprietary interpretations is true, or accurate, or informative, is almost the wrong question. They are very unlikely to be any of these things because that’s not their purpose. These proprietary takes are instead designed to engage broad audiences by simulating unique insight into hidden machinations.
Regardless of what else is true about Kirk and what else is true about Owens, what I just quoted you writing is the only thing that actually matters in this entire discussion. Arguing over whether or not Owens is 'correct' or 'true' or 'accurate' is a pointless waste of time, because _she's not trying to be_. That is roughly wrong in the same way that "prove to me what your favourite colour is" would be wrong. The only way you can prove to me your favourite colour is to just tell me, and if I screech and say "no, I demand to see the data", you know I don't actually care about the question because taking it at face value is nonsensical, so I cannot possibly mean it that way.
You're right. It is a real time, true crime "investigation," all the more compelling because it is also crowd-sourced. Owens encourages her "mommy sleuths" to take part in her "investigation" and send tips. She has hit on a goldmine new form of entertainment. Another reason for its success is a (well-deserved) collapse of trust in traditional institutions (law enforcement, the Protestant church). The other "sides" Owens has purported to be fighting against: Kash Patel's FBI and TPUSA - especially its "Faith" division, are imo respectively a dumpster fire and a spiritual trainwreck that are also hard to look away from. Win win.
"...and various other things that it is not worth my time to type or your time to read." AMEN!
"We are just asking questions, but the answers never lead us in any coherent direction, because the audience for this stuff shares little common ground and drawing clear political conclusions would alienate too many supporters."
This last point helps explain my frustration with attempting to watch Russell Brand interviewing Candace Owens on his Rumble channel the other day. He foolishly began asking fairly straightforward questions about Candace's views of the CK assassination. She relentlessly changed the subject each time, until poor Russell was forced to ask a different question, which she also refused to answer coherently. I had to stop watching only a few minutes into it, because I realized that I was going to drive myself crazy looking at my computer screen and mentally demanding her to "answer the effing questions!" Your observation explains how not answering Russell's questions was the whole point. I'm therefore proud of myself for recognizing that it wasn't "worth my time to watch," even though I didn't understand why at the time.
> While she has yet to formulate a single, cohesive theory of Kirk’s death, Owens has disputed that Tyler Robinson acted alone, insisted that some foreign state actor (whether Israel, France or Egypt) may have been involved, and alternatively or simultaneously proposed that the assassination may have been coordinated within Kirk’s own organisation, Turning Point USA
the No Agenda podcast appears to share my disdain for Owens, and periodically follows the crazy shit she says and occasionally investigates.
A few weeks ago, when she was spouting off about the "Egyptian Air Force", No Agenda looked into her claims, because one of the cohosts has a pilots license and so anything involving airplanes catches his eye.
Long story short: the Egyptian Air Force buys planes from US defense contractors. When US defense contractors sell planes to foreign air forces (honestly, also when they sell them to the US, it's a serious problem that's currently in the news right now), they do not give them either the legal right or the technical specifications to do maintenance on their own. And, *US* defense contractors are not in Egypt, they're in the US.
Quite literally, when Candace Owens was spouting off about some mystery Egyptian Air Force plane, that was Egypt taking their fighter jet in to the shop to get it fixed up. This is all public record (although I'm not sure where you'd look to find it), and it is essentially journalistic malpractice for her not to have known that before accusing Egypt of helping to kill Kirk
As a gun nut, the use of a 30-06 remains very difficult for me to believe. It's a 2000 yard rifle meant to take down big game, including moose, at that range. Sorry, but something stinks.
Also, I will give you the 'nut' part, but I'm very skeptical about the 'gun' part: Yes the original army rifle that used .30-06 -- the M1903 -- did have ladder sights, but that was just a traditional carryover from the old large bore black powder rifles where you needed a large elevation to make a 2 *hundred* yard shot. *Thousands* were not remotely in the running when ladder sites were designed.
When it came to the 1930s when the US fielded the Garand, they replaced the sights with a much more useful peep site for direct fire. The moral of the story is, rifles make shitty howitzers.
Yeah, I meant 2000 feet, so you got me I suppose (and a funny joke to boot). Nonetheless, I seriously doubt Kirk was killed with a 30-06, but who knows, maybe he really did have a neck of steel and it was a miracle.
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.
This is getting fucking insane.
You need help.
LOL!! If I took psychiatric advice from Internet chatbots, I'd really need help.
False flag meaning what in this specific instance?
Not an expert, but I went to watch the Jimmy Dore video about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqZo30kvLI
The assassins were Salafi ISIS (which is, among other things, a Mossad-affiliated terrorist group in Syria) and they were able to shoot into the crowd for 20 minutes while there was no response from a nearby police station. Finally one of the shooters was tackled and disarmed by a bystander who happened to be a Muslim, and the police showed up to shoot the other one.
Israeli propagandists were quick to blame the incident on Iran, and call for war. And, Candace Owens predicted last November that there would be a false flag incident this week. Who knows, maybe she's on to something.
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 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's always been like that. I followed her on and off for years. She'd pop up on my Twitter feed, retweeted by people I followed, saying interesting or funny or pithy things. After I saw enough of them, I'd follow her myself. And then she'd go off the rails about something and I'd unfollow her. A couple months later, the whole thing would repeat. I figured she was trying to find the wildest, edgiest take to get followers. When she was hired by the Daily Wire I was really happy for her--I thought she was really talented, and would settle down now that she was at a place she could concentrate on content rather than trying to promote herself, and she seemed to for a while. But she started going off the rails again long before this. I think she is mentally unstable and goes through periods of mania.
Kanye West, anyone?
Whenever I see a case of "formerly rational icon goes nonlinear" like Owens or West (or dare I say Carlson?) I cannot help but be haunted by the memory of an SF/intrigue novel by Greg Bear named "Vitals." The plot (sorry, some spoilers) concerns a Soviet world domination plot, a Stalin-era version of MK-Ultra, but based on manipulative parasites (like toxoplasmosis, baculoviruses, the zombie-fly fungus) instead of drugs, and forcibly evolved and sophisticated over decades to the present day.
One of the characters was a respected professor of Soviet history who saw some documents he should not have, and as a consequence, the conspirators got him cashiered by giving him what could best be described as a case of antisemitic Tourette's. (The book was written when antisemitism was still considered disgraceful, not trendy, as it is now.)
"I have a defect in my character, put there by my father and grandparents. A little rip of tribal fear. We all have them. They pulled mine wide open... I am pariah. I am unclean, unemployable. The Jews have made sure I can't publish, can't teach." [He knows it is not the Jews, but the very characteristic of his disease is that it inserts such language for him.]
Obviously, I'm not claiming any such fantastic conspiracy. But the weird congruence of what is described in that chapter with what I observe going on almost on a quarterly basis these days haunts the hell out of me.
It's above my pay grade to diagnose her, but you appear to be over the target.
I'm not a psychologist, but I've seen more than my share of mental illness and the way she talks during these jags reminds me of mania.
"I used to respect her opinion, heck she was even on my list of replacements if I actually outlived my wife." -- HA HA HA! Well she may be crazy, but she's still beautiful!
Her looks help drive her popularity, and she's not afraid to capitalize on it.
All women in broadcasting do that. It's a difficult question for women--men like to look at them, so they get jobs, but if the reason they got jobs is that they have a large bust, should they wear low-cut blouses, super tight clothes, and tight skirts on the air, or should they not? They usually do, and the ones in the USA are nothing compared to the Latin America. I was in Honduras a couple of years ago for the annual Feast of Our Lady of Suyapa, and there were women TV reporters all over the place--skin-tight dresses, incredibly high heels, and TONS of makeup.
It's more classy here, but the same thing. The famous (or infamous, depending on your view) Megyn Kelly used to come on the air in halter tops or tops with spaghetti straps. I don't know if she does it now, but the whole "the guy in charge of the network was a terrible sexist" schtick from a gorgeously toned woman in a halter top never worked for me. At least Candace has always worn clothes.
> she was even on my list
> of replacements if I actually
> outlived my wife
You're part of her personal circle?
She's on his "freebie list."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=freebie+list
Oh good Lord.
And yes, definitely a lot of crazy-hot going on here.
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 can’t watch Candace Owens, and it is too bad because I knew her before she turned conspiratorial and antisemitic. She is an intelligent woman, but something happened.
And she is interfering with Charlie’s wife’s ability to grieve by talking about her +TPUSA.
My question about Charlie’s assassination was that there are possible accomplices given a recent Discord Chat including members that were part of the same community. I will probably be thinking about that for 60 years, just like JFK’s death. I had my theory but my mother yelled at me and told me I shouldn’t say such things( I was 10) never had a President die during school.
Candace has been more correct than not: BLM being a grift, Covid, and Israel’s retaliation against Hamas in Gaza.
She might be “just asking questions” but why isn’t the FBI doing this?
Why was Tyler Robinson’s legal team appointed by the judge, when a pro bono team had assembled to defend him? And why is one of the attorneys representing the shooter a relative of the TPUSA individual who removed the SD cards from the cameras, footage of which has never been released.
And if you think that’s strange, why were there searches for Tyler James Robinson from DC and Israel IP addresses in the days leading up to the shooting, not to mention searches for doctors and hospitals in the area from the same locations in July?
All seems odd to me, so I’m letting Candace and friends cook.
But seriously, didn't eugyppius find the perfect photo of her?
Didn’t see it.
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.
Egyptian planes do not follow Erika Kirk.
What are the gyp's thoughts on watching the wifely unit Erika Kitk's live performances? Aside from all else it is the appearance of a person who never expected she'd have to act out a part, and is proving all kinds of inept at doing so, that arouses my real curiosity. (I( wouldn't go neat Ms Owens and her ilk, I think they're there to ensure you lose yr marbles)
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.
I trust Tucker on this one, as he has deep ties to the CIA and he seems very certain about this. Candace is just seeking reasonable doubt, which should be the focus of any investigation, private or governmental. If she hurts some feelings, too bad, such is life.
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.
But how did you know it was accurate?
Because what was being reported by Walter Cronkite, Paul Harvey and John Facenda fit with the reality of what was easily observed.
But of course it did. It still would, if you only watched TV today. You wouldn't notice any mismatches with reality because they aren't stupid and don't twist the truth too visibly on anything the viewers can directly observe.
Think about how many times supposedly prestigious institutions were caught faking things. The faked footage of Trump by the BBC and other European state media firms, for example. Now think how you learned about these events. It wasn't likely by watching those institutions themselves. You learned it through the internet. Without that alternative way to spread information, how would people have ever caught it if Cronkite and others were liars?
Here in the UK our trusted news presenters were knighted or convicted of paedophilia.
Maybe the film Anchorman would be a good reference for this current conversational issue ;)
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
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.
Yes, bullets don't always perform as designed. My rule of thumb assumption is that every high profile crime investigated by the FBI is covered up and/or evidence forged even when the accused is obviously guilty. Sometimes the authorities frame the innocent, but more often they "frame" the guilty. It's just a nervous tick they can't seem to resist.
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.
Well, the champion marksman and former gun store owner I know says you are wrong.
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.
Within a minute of the Kirk shooting, people were posting "Israel" on Twitter. Within a few days, I officially had Conspiracy Theory Fatigue. I no longer find them mildly amusing and I just want them to go away.
Everything is a conspiracy now because during covid and other mass retardations, our Rulers and their propagandists, and the managers, were proven to be so clever.
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.
I think she's a fair-weather blogger. She goes where she believes she'll make the most impact, thus the most money. I first heard her on FOX News around 2020 during the campaign. She was conservative, bright, quick, and well spoken. I thought she'd eventually have a shot at a national office as a GOP candidate. Then she moved on to the Daily Wire and became a bit more strange while talking about the birth of her baby and vaccines, the French President's wife, Megan Markle and Harry. She's a gossip and mean about it. I quit listening to her because it was like being in a junior high lunch room all the time.
But she really ticked me off with her comments after the Oct. 7th attacks on Israel, when it became clear she was anti-semitic. Since then, she's been entrenched in that stance, and her thoughts have been evil. The things she's assumed about Erica Kirk, TPUSA, and the people working for Kirk come from the mind of a deranged person. She's either mentally unwell or totally enamoured by the fact that her videos are garnering her so much money. I do know that she's met with Erica and may back off on some of her claims due to the possibility of future lawsuits.
There's a person on YT I've watched since the beginning of this event, Paramount Tactical (https://youtu.be/O6zFmbMmrWs?si=vtbxlWPgtDkSR0ud), who has done in-depth research on Owen's points, as well as the entire event, and shown what happened, why, what was done correctly, and what could be improved, from his point of view as a former service man with extensive knowledge and training. I think watching could help clear up many questions people have here. I know it did mine re: the 30.06, bullet trajectory, tissue damage, first aid given, hospital routes, the layout of the event, access to the event locations, escape routes, Kirk's security, campus security, and Owen's ideas, which he disputes point by point.
It's tragic to see the critical thinking and reasoning skills that have been lost to the inept educational system we have, the internet slop kids constantly watch, the mediocre TV crime and cop shows people view, and the lack of deep conversations people have with each other now. People generally seem much more stupid than they were 30 years ago.
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.
"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...
Having finished your article now, and stepping back from opining on specific quotes to take your whole post holistically, we are in alignment. In fact, we are so in alignment that I'm going to blow your mind right now, Eugy. You are exactly correct about Owens, but there's a much much more concise mental model you can use, that No Agenda figured out the other day
Do you know what genre of podcasting is, BY FAR, the most popular and subscribed genre of podcasting?
True crime.
What Candace is doing right now is becoming a "*REAL* True Crime" Podcast. By, of course, just making shit up, since nothings true or real online. But once No Agenda hit on this interpretation, it became obvious. She's brazenly pandering to the kinds of middle aged bored housewife women who listen to true crime podcasts and imagine elaborate criminal plots for excitement. And so, when you say this
> Asking whether any of these highly engineered and triangulated proprietary interpretations is true, or accurate, or informative, is almost the wrong question. They are very unlikely to be any of these things because that’s not their purpose. These proprietary takes are instead designed to engage broad audiences by simulating unique insight into hidden machinations.
Regardless of what else is true about Kirk and what else is true about Owens, what I just quoted you writing is the only thing that actually matters in this entire discussion. Arguing over whether or not Owens is 'correct' or 'true' or 'accurate' is a pointless waste of time, because _she's not trying to be_. That is roughly wrong in the same way that "prove to me what your favourite colour is" would be wrong. The only way you can prove to me your favourite colour is to just tell me, and if I screech and say "no, I demand to see the data", you know I don't actually care about the question because taking it at face value is nonsensical, so I cannot possibly mean it that way.
You're right. It is a real time, true crime "investigation," all the more compelling because it is also crowd-sourced. Owens encourages her "mommy sleuths" to take part in her "investigation" and send tips. She has hit on a goldmine new form of entertainment. Another reason for its success is a (well-deserved) collapse of trust in traditional institutions (law enforcement, the Protestant church). The other "sides" Owens has purported to be fighting against: Kash Patel's FBI and TPUSA - especially its "Faith" division, are imo respectively a dumpster fire and a spiritual trainwreck that are also hard to look away from. Win win.
To be clear, it wasn't my idea, credit goes to Adam Curry of No Agenda.
"...and various other things that it is not worth my time to type or your time to read." AMEN!
"We are just asking questions, but the answers never lead us in any coherent direction, because the audience for this stuff shares little common ground and drawing clear political conclusions would alienate too many supporters."
This last point helps explain my frustration with attempting to watch Russell Brand interviewing Candace Owens on his Rumble channel the other day. He foolishly began asking fairly straightforward questions about Candace's views of the CK assassination. She relentlessly changed the subject each time, until poor Russell was forced to ask a different question, which she also refused to answer coherently. I had to stop watching only a few minutes into it, because I realized that I was going to drive myself crazy looking at my computer screen and mentally demanding her to "answer the effing questions!" Your observation explains how not answering Russell's questions was the whole point. I'm therefore proud of myself for recognizing that it wasn't "worth my time to watch," even though I didn't understand why at the time.
Owens, Carlson and their ilk do not give a sh*t about the truth. Pure “entertainment.” Digital National Enquirer.
> While she has yet to formulate a single, cohesive theory of Kirk’s death, Owens has disputed that Tyler Robinson acted alone, insisted that some foreign state actor (whether Israel, France or Egypt) may have been involved, and alternatively or simultaneously proposed that the assassination may have been coordinated within Kirk’s own organisation, Turning Point USA
the No Agenda podcast appears to share my disdain for Owens, and periodically follows the crazy shit she says and occasionally investigates.
A few weeks ago, when she was spouting off about the "Egyptian Air Force", No Agenda looked into her claims, because one of the cohosts has a pilots license and so anything involving airplanes catches his eye.
Long story short: the Egyptian Air Force buys planes from US defense contractors. When US defense contractors sell planes to foreign air forces (honestly, also when they sell them to the US, it's a serious problem that's currently in the news right now), they do not give them either the legal right or the technical specifications to do maintenance on their own. And, *US* defense contractors are not in Egypt, they're in the US.
Quite literally, when Candace Owens was spouting off about some mystery Egyptian Air Force plane, that was Egypt taking their fighter jet in to the shop to get it fixed up. This is all public record (although I'm not sure where you'd look to find it), and it is essentially journalistic malpractice for her not to have known that before accusing Egypt of helping to kill Kirk
As a gun nut, the use of a 30-06 remains very difficult for me to believe. It's a 2000 yard rifle meant to take down big game, including moose, at that range. Sorry, but something stinks.
Huh? .30-06 was the standard infantry round in the US through two generations of war.
Also, I will give you the 'nut' part, but I'm very skeptical about the 'gun' part: Yes the original army rifle that used .30-06 -- the M1903 -- did have ladder sights, but that was just a traditional carryover from the old large bore black powder rifles where you needed a large elevation to make a 2 *hundred* yard shot. *Thousands* were not remotely in the running when ladder sites were designed.
When it came to the 1930s when the US fielded the Garand, they replaced the sights with a much more useful peep site for direct fire. The moral of the story is, rifles make shitty howitzers.
Yeah, I meant 2000 feet, so you got me I suppose (and a funny joke to boot). Nonetheless, I seriously doubt Kirk was killed with a 30-06, but who knows, maybe he really did have a neck of steel and it was a miracle.
2,000 yards is... a bit optimistic.