Must say this made me laugh (in a good way)…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
Economics |
Careful what you click on…October 28th, 2025 |
 49 comments to Careful what you click on…Leave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I wasn’t familiar with Candice Owen but I did wonder what happened to Tucker Carlson. He seemed a sensible chap for many years but is obviously mad as a box of frogs.
Perhaps my failure to engage with mainstream pundits, award ceremonies, approved broadcasters, celebrities and ‘influencers’ is not received as a silent message of contempt? So… it’s all my fault for slack gatekeeping?
Everything he said can also be applied to voting.
What you reward with your votes is what you create more of in the world.
We get the media that we choose to watch, and we get the government for which we choose to vote.
And yet (or, and so), here we are.
@Old Jack Tar
obviously mad as a box of frogs.
Are they mad as in crazy or mad as in angry? And why is a box of frogs mad? I mean are they mad because they are in the box, or are frogs just intrinsically mad and the madness is compounded by there being a bunch all in one single place?
When it comes to voting, unless there is a “None of the Above” option, then you are playing cards with no chance of changing your hand and that hand contains the jokers too.
It is a British English phrase, so mad means crazy, tonto, heading for the loony bin.
However it is not a particularly accurate phrase. Having seen boxes of live frogs in Chinese wet markets, I’d describe them as ‘gloomily resigned” or perhaps just ‘dispirited’.
Tucker Carlson claimed that space aliens were visiting this world – when challenged he produced no evidence, yet an audience of people stayed with him.
Candice Owens claimed that the American Moon landings were faked – again an audience stuck with her.
Konstantin Kisin has a point – we can not just blame people such as Tucker Carlson or Candice Owens for what they do – the audience empowers them.
There are two possibilities in the case of Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens – either they know what they are pushing is false, in which case they are engaged in fraud – and the audience is aiding this fraud. Or they really do believe the things they say – in which case the audience is worse, it is getting a “kick” out of watching mentally ill people rave – which is no better than the people who used to go to the Bedlam mental hospital to laugh at the patients.
I hope hope that people such as Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens are just fraudsters – in which case they, and their audience, deserve contempt but not much attention.
But there is the darker possibility that both or at least one (very possibly Candice Owens) are mentally ill – and instead of getting the help they desperately need, they are getting people encouraging their delusions and leading them deeper and deeper into insanity.
Recently Candace Owens said that Charlie Kirk had come to her in a dream and told her that supposed friends (the lady heavily implied it was the Jews) had betrayed and murdered him.
This claim caused much mirth – but what if Candace Owens really-does-believe this? What if we are dealing with a desperately ill women who, instead of getting the help she needs, has got people pushing her further and further into madness – encouraging her to believe her delusions, whilst (behind her back) laughing at her?
Sorry, but anything with that “one word at a time” open captioning style right in the middle in an obnoxiously large font is an immediate no from me, whatever the material.
I did always think institutions like PragerU/Daily Wire were playing a dangerous and opportunistic game promoting Candace Owens. I’m not surprised such a volatile person turned on them, although I don’t feel remotely sorry for the likes of DW. They probably made a lot of money from her.
Candace Owens was a close friend of Charlie Kirk and his death has had a great effect on her. She is determined to try and get to the bottom of it.
The official story has a lot wrong with it. A 30.06 rifle was recovered, but everyone who knows guns agrees that there is no way a 30.06 bullet would not have gone straight through Charlie’s neck. The idea his bones were so strong and healthy they stopped a bullet is ridiculous.
The photos of a young man going up the stairs to the roof of the building show a slim man with a small back pack. There is no sign of a rifle. The video of a man running across the roof and jumping to the ground shows no sign of a rifle. The FBI says it found a screwdriver on the roof, which could have been used to disassemble the rifle. Only problem, it takes over 40 seconds to unscrew the stock from the barrel, and photos show someone running across the roof within one second of the shot.
So I agree with Candace and others that the official story does not work. It is not 1963 any more, there is too much photographic evidence nowadays, but such is the power of the “official narrative” that you will never hear it from the MSM.
I am sure her anti-semitic ravings will be of great help.
Marius:
Perhaps she should just shrug her shoulders and accept the official narrative of her friend’s death?
She may get nowhere, but at least she is trying.
JohnK – Candice Owens was saying insane (clearly insane) things long before Charlie Kirk was murdered.
And no one gets to the bottom of a murder investigation by taking seriously a dream of the murder victim coming to them and saying that false friends murdered him. No JohnK – Candice Owens is not trying, to try the lady must first work (if need be with medical help) so that her reason is in control of her passions, presently her reason (including her moral reason) is the slave of her passions – and that is insanity.
Martin – I do not feel sorry for the Daily Wire over this, I feel sorry for Candice Owens – as I believe the lady to be suffering from mental illness.
As for Tucker Carlson – he may be mentally ill, or he may be just a grifter saying things he knows to be untrue, in order to generate interest (and money).
On Tucker Carlson – I have a personal confession to make, I did not care nearly as much as I should have done when he was lying about Ukraine – I knew, for example, that when he said the government that Mr Putin tried to overthrow by his invasion of 2022, was put in power in “2014” he was not telling the truth (it actually came to power in the elections of 2019 – and it was an overwhelming election victory for Mr Zelensky), but I made mental excuses for Mr Carlson “well there was a coup in 2014” and so on, and I did not like President Zelensky very much anyway (too “International Community” for my taste) – but that in no way justifies the vicious invasion by Mr Putin’s forces in 2022 which was very much aimed at overthrowing a democratically elected government- remember the thrust from the north – that was aimed at Kiev, NOT at adjusting the eastern borders, and there was also the deployment of airborne Russian troops near Kiev – overthrowing the Ukrainian government was the clear objective in 2022.
When Mr Carlson started to tell lies (endless, vicious, lies) about Israel, I was angry – but the thought did strike me “why was I not more angry when he was lying about Ukraine – I should have been far more angry than I was”.
Circa 2015 she was a leftist, spewing venom about people in the Tea Party and in 2016 was attacking Trump, mocking his penis size and the like. I am no expert in her whole backstory, but it is curious she become reinvented herself some big MAGA star not long after Trump won his first presidential victory and was in a TPUSA position as early as 2017. I do think the centre right in both the US and UK has a tendency to quickly promote recently defected ex-leftists, usually to the detriment of long-term loyalists. It frequently backfires, and is especially silly when these defectors are exposed as quite mad- see Candace Owens, see James Lindsay, etc, etc.
Isn’t that the truth!
As Marius points out, even if there is more to the Kirk assassination than meets the eye (I have no opinion on that score), if Candice Owen starts trying to alert the world to some truth she has uncovered, the fact she is a loony antisemite convinced the President of France’s wife is a man… will damage the credibility of anything she attaches herself to.
Paul:
Just because you disagree with someone does not make them insane.
I have little knowledge of Candace Owens, I did not even know how close she was to Charlie Kirk. But the fact is she was, and she was an early member of TPUSA and knows many people in the organisation, and she does not believe the official story about his death.
I like to look at facts, and the facts about the rifle I mentioned are real. A 30.06 round fired from where it is alleged would have blown right through Charlie’s neck. His bones were not made of steel. And there is just no proof the Mauser rifle was ever on that roof. A man certainly was, but photographs of him going up onto the roof and running and dropping from it just do not show a rifle. There is something wrong, but as ever the FBI is happy with the lone nut theory.
So I hope Candace Owens continues to worry at this problem, and I hope she finds out more. She is doing it because her friend was murdered, and I cannot criticize her for that.
JohnK: Like Perry, I have no opinion on Kirk’s assassination, but i understand that the FBI is looking into possible accomplices.
You make arguments for the official version of events being fake, that are superficially convincing to me, but i am not interested in going deeper than the superficial.
The fact is, if Candace makes arguments that are not even superficially convincing, and builds a wild conspiracy theory on top of that, then people are going to say: If this is the best that you can do, then there is no point in further debate. So, she is not helping to get the truth out (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the truth is still in).
The preview image I see is a picture of a lady pointing at the viewer, with the caption “DIE” written across the middle.
The title of the post is “Careful what you click on…”
… I think I’ll give this video a miss.
JohnK wrote:
“I like to look at facts, and the facts about the rifle I mentioned are real. A 30.06 round fired from where it is alleged would have blown right through Charlie’s neck.”
But this bold assertion of fact relies on the idea that there is only one “30.06 round”. What is more-likely true when considering a full-on 3,000 fps military round, may become perhaps less-likely true when considering any one of a thousand (literally) commercially-available and hand-rolled loadings for the 30.06 cartridge. One would have to know just what the cartridge that was (allegedly) fired at Kirk actually was before making any statement at all about what it might or not have done. And even then it could only be a very conditional statement – anyone with any practical knowledge of bullet performance knows that there are very few absolute rules about how a bullet may perform in a particular situation.
Not to say that there aren’t some very troubling questions about the Kirk shooting. But those questions are not likely to be clarified by this sort of absolute assertion, made with little or no evidence. See “The Adventure of the Empty House”.
Regarding the other point, it certainly seems that Candace Owens has slipped into some sort of delusional parallel universe. There’s a clinical term for people who claim to hear the voices of dead people.
llater,
llamas
@llamas
But this bold assertion of fact relies on the idea that there is only one “30.06 round”. What is more-likely true when considering a full-on 3,000 fps military round, may become perhaps less-likely true when considering any one of a thousand (literally) commercially-available and hand-rolled loadings for the 30.06 cartridge.
I hate talking about this thing. It is rather upsetting to me. But, FWIW, my memory is that the reports were that he was wearing a bullet proof vest and the bullet actually hit that and bounced off to hit him, which would obviously considerably decrease its energy. (Full disclosure, I did not watch the horrific up-close-and-personal videos of the shooting.) Plus you have no idea what ammo he was using apart from its caliber. And let’s be clear, the guy confessed to a friend (not under FBI torture after sixteen hours of questioning without a bathroom break.) He confessed to his furry lover guy and to his mother. And the most pathetic thing: he was really worried his dad would be mad because he lost his grandpappy’s rifle.
I mean it is hard to believe that some lone loser could do something like this — not because it stretches credulity but simply because it is so frustrating that such an insignificant person could do something of such monumental consequence. But even losers get lucky sometimes.
For sure Candice Owens has lost the plot, either that or traded her integrity for clicks. FWIW, given her history, I think conservatives embraced her a bit too incautiously out of enthusiasm for her, shall we say, advantageous demographic composition. And like a lot of people lately I think she massively exaggerates her closeness to Kirk and TPUSA. And Tucker Carlson is someone I have always had a soft spot for, but for sure he has up sticks and moved to crazy town. But that’s what taking your religion a bit too seriously will do for you.
I had a very sensible friend when in college who had a fascination with conspiracy theories. it didn’t start with belief but a curiosity in how people could believe in them. Over time the fascination moved him to the belief side. by the time he got to his late forties he succumbed to religious mania. despite never having a religious man he came to believe that when the ‘rapture’ came he would be a principal teacher in conjunction with Christ. I think the internet aided in his descent into delusion. he found echo chambers where he met no opposition and endless affirmation. curiously he remained a highly functioning real estate attorney who kept all of this to himself and his computer. he tried to bring his wife along with him but she is a person of great good sense and resisted his insanity. he neglected his health and died at 66. so, its very possible that Tucker believes the much of the delusional nonsense he is spouting. It happens, but clearly both he and Candace are approaching mad as frogs status.
JohnK.
The Moon landings were not faked.
And Charlie Kirk did not come to Candice Owens in a dream, explaining that he had been murdered by false friends (i.e. the Jews).
Yes there are a kind of centre right type so keen to be able to rebuke accusations of racism that they would be prone to embracing someone like Owens. I don’t think this works. The accusations of racism keep coming, the only way to defeat that is to not care and never apologise.
It is a constant struggle to keep a well founded scepticism descending into the kooksphere. There are shit loads of opportunists looking to take advantage of those suspicious of mainstream perspectives and narratives, and it’s hardly just incels stuck in their bedrooms who step on such rakes. It’s curious how James Lindsay, for example, went from debunking woke to formulating conspiracy theories about Michaelmas. Or how James Delingpole went from climate change scepticism to 9/11 trutherism or that dinosaurs are a hoax.
A sad fact is that such dissidents often make themselves quite harmless to the ruling elites. Banging on about dinosaurs, fake moon landings, anti-popery conspiracies etc to the plebs doesn’t bother the elites in the slightest. It both diverts and discredits dissent down rabbit holes. Governments have often themselves covertly pushed conspiracy theories for that reason.
We must be clear on this, if Candice Owens is NOT mentally ill, then the lady has spread vicious nonsense – deliberately.
If the lady is mentally ill she deserves compassion and help – if the lady is NOT mentally ill then she should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
What could have been a profoundly important moment for sober reflection about how the education system (not just the universities – the leftist indoctrination starts much younger) and much of the media (including the entertainment media) spread terrible hatred of conservatives, such as Charlie Kirk, hatred based on LIES (such as the false claim that Mr Kirk wanted to hurt homosexuals) has been turned into a horrible “the Jews did it” farce.
Llamas:
3000 feet per second is too hot for a 30.06. Depending on bullet weight, you might expect 2400 to 2800 fps. But whether you use a full metal jacket, a soft point hunting round or a frangible round, none of them would be defeated by the bones in a human neck. But we are left with bullshit about the “miracle” of Charlie’s strong bones stopping the round. Truly, this is the 2025 version of 1963’s “magic bullet”, and about as believable.
What we need is for the FBI to release the information as to what ammunition was in the rifle’s magazine. Will they? If not, why not?
Fraser:
There were some rumours Charlie was wearing body armour with a ballistic plate, but these were wrong. He had no body armour. He had worn it in the past, but TPUSA cancelled their contract with the company which had provided it. A coincidence no doubt.
The suspect is indeed alleged to have “confessed” to his tranny “girlfriend” via text message, surely the most retarded thing any killer could have ever done. Do we believe it? How possible is it to fake such things?
I do know that the suspect has not “confessed” in any legal sense, and asserts his innocence. Will he ever get to court, or have a problem such as befell Lee Harvey Oswald or Jeffrey Epstein?
Paul:
I neither know nor care about Candace Owens’ views on the moon landings. I do know that was a close friend of Charlie’s, and is not happy with the official narrative about his death. If she can find anything which has been covered up then she will be doing good work. That is all that interests me.
JohnK.
Pattern of behaviour.
If someone repeatedly says insane things, which Candice Ownes does, it discredits other things they say.
As for Mr Kirk – we know who murdered him (a leftist murdered Mr Kirk – a leftist who was then turned in by their own family) and we know why (the leftist murdered Mr Kirk because the leftist falsely believed that Mr Kirk wanted to hurt homosexuals, transsexuals, and others), so trying to pretend the Jews did it is not “good work” – it is a disgrace.
There is a question – and that question is, did this leftist act alone or did other leftists know, before hand, what he was going to do? I suspect that some other leftists DID know in advice – and then tried to cover up their prior knowledge with a faked-up computer conversation – where they pretended to be shocked at the murder (but I could be mistaken – perhaps his room-mate, and others, did NOT know in advance).
But Candice Owens is not going to do “good work” on this question – or any other matter.
Candice Owens needs, desperately needs, medical help – but, instead, her audience is drawing the lady deeper and deeper into madness, feeding her delusions.
Paul:
There has to be a trial before we can say who killed Charlie, assuming the accused man is allowed to live long enough to stand trial. It is not a given.
The man photographed climbing the stairs to the roof of the building had on dark glasses and a baseball cap. I would not like to say it was the accused. There was certainly so sign of a large hunting rifle about his person. There was no sign of a rifle in the video of a man, presumably the same man, jumping from the roof and running away. The rifle was found in some woods a distance away from the campus, but I have seen nothing actually putting it on that roof. We will have to see what evidence the state comes up with.
Paul, whether Candice Owens needs medical assistance, or whether Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes or any other of these characters need to be looked at by people in white coats, is not something I can judge and neither can you, as far as I know.
You regularly explain – correctly! – that for years, our intellectual world has absorbed the deterministic argument that no-one has free will, or what Ayn Rand called volitional consciousness. The irony, of course, is that even a defender of determinism such as Sam Harris will, in his actual conduct, behave as if free will exists, such as getting angry at injustice or asserting the truth of something (a determinist has no business asserting X or being angry/happy about something if they had no choice in the matter).
If we deny the existence of free will (which itself is a self-contradiction) how can we know if a person has diminished responsibility? To asset that DR exists is to implicitly accept that there is such a thing as being responsible in the first place.
I am going to start from the assumption that people such as Owens, Carlson and the rest have free will. They can introspect; they can think about how they think, turn matters over in their mind and test their assumptions against evidence, consider different ideas and focus on rationality. They seem articulate and on the face of it, seem to be quite smart. Carlson is a very wealthy and successful man. Owens appears to be successful, at least financially, although she may be a deeply troubled and unhappy person.
Let’s not medicalise these folk. I judge them to be morally disgusting; they bring zero benefit to the public square.
JohnK wrote:
“3000 feet per second is too hot for a 30.06. Depending on bullet weight, you might expect 2400 to 2800 fps.”
and I politely call – nonsense. The “standard” military M2 Ball cartridge of WW2 made over 2,800 fps at the muzzle, and this was optimised for use in both rifles and machine guns. Other loadings were even faster. Depending on bullet weight, there are any number of published loadings for 30.06 that achieve velocities of 3,500 fps and beyond.
Regarding Candace Owens, apart from her obvious demographic attributes in adding weight and balance to Republican talking points, it’s only fair to note that she was an accomplished and skilled speaker and debater, both scripted and extempore. Any number of YouTube and other videos from the period 2015 – 2020 will bear out what I say. I can’t explain why she has run so completely off the rails since then.
llater,
llamas
Llamas:
I imagine a 3,500 fps 30.06 bullet would be very light indeed, and/or have a heavy powder charge. I have never heard of such a thing, but you may well be right. But my point stands, a bullet travelling at that velocity would not be stopped by the vertebrae in a man’s neck, which seems to be the official story. I would like to see the autopsy report, but it seems that is a private document. I’d like to know just what ammunition that Mauser was loaded with, but that seems to be a secret too.
There is no doubt that the bullet did not exit Charlie’s body, and there seems to be no-one who can explain it, without resorting to talk of miracles, which I find rather unsatisfactory.
JohnK wrote:
“I imagine a 3,500 fps 30.06 bullet would be very light indeed, and/or have a heavy powder charge. I have never heard of such a thing, but you may well be right.”
Oh, there’s no question but that I’m right. For example, if you care to go to the excellent website for Hodgdon propellants (hodgdonreloading.com) and run their superb data tool for the 30.06, you’ll find any number of loads using just Hodgdon’s branded propellants that run over 3,000 fps, and several that run over 3,500 fps. Don’t take my word for it.
But that’s not really the point. More to the point is that, at the other end of the scale, Hodgdon lists at least one load for the 30.06 that has lower muzzle energy than a mid-range 9mm pistol cartridge. And we wouldn’t be a bit surprised that a 9mm pistol bullet, fired from 300 feet away, did not exit the body of the victim – would we?
That’s the real point. We don’t know nearly enough about the actual weapon and the actual ammunition used to make any hard-and-fast assertions about what really happened here. That’s why I referred to “The Adventure of the Empty House”. I’m also minded of a case around here, over 30 years ago now, where the police were absolutely fuzdazzled because the recovered bullet absolutely was a .270 calibre, so they were looking for a weapon in that calibre. Turned out the actual weapon used was a 30.06 (IIRC), which will chamber and fire a .270 cartridge although the accuracy is degraded quite-a-bit.
llater,
llamas
I’ve had friends load 30-06 very light for subsonic performance.
Llamas:
The whole point is that we should not be having to speculate like this. The other rounds of ammunition in the magazine should tell us what round was fired. Why is the FBI keeping it quiet? In fact, why is the FBI even involved?
Incidentally, the accused is not a gun guy, I cannot see him handloading exotic 30.06 chamberings.
Bobby:
There is a distinct crack on the sound recordings. It was no subsonic round.
The bullet hit Mr Kirk’s protection vest and ricocheted upwards – into his neck, the ricochet killed him, he was unlucky.
Bad luck happens – there is no perfect protection.
JohnK wrote:
“The whole point is that we should not be having to speculate like this.”
Who’s this “we”, kemo sabe? I’m not speculating about anything?
“The other rounds of ammunition in the magazine should tell us what round was fired.”
Why?
“Incidentally, the accused is not a gun guy, I cannot see him handloading exotic 30.06 chamberings.”
And you know this – how? Besides, while he may not be a “gun guy”, he allegedly was able to lay hands on a distinctly unusual rifle – a German Gew98, rechambered to 30.06, which is definitely not a run of the mill weapon. If that is true (and I make no such assertions) then there’s no reason why he could not have similarly laid hands on some – unusual – ammunition.
It’s been discussed here before that mentally-disturbed persons can surprisingly-often evade or confuse conventional law-enforcement responses, precisely because their affliction causes them to behave in unusual or unpredictable ways.
If I were the Utah prosecutor, I’d be playing my cards very close to my chest also, and letting out the very-least information that I could, to preserve the best chance of a successful prosecution. One need only look across the border at New Mexico. I, and, I suspect, many others, would have voted for manslaughter if we had been on the jury, but the prosecution managed to mishandle the case so completely that a more-or-less self-evidently guilty man simply waltzed away free.
llater,
llamas
Wait. They convicted him of voluntary manslaughter, didn’t they? NG on murder 2?
Def no waltzing away. Penalties aren’t too different.
(Here’s where I find out we’re talking about different cases.)
@ bobby b. – no, in the case I’m thinking of, he was indicted for (some level of manslaughter, I’d have to look it up and it’s late :-)), but the judge dismissed the case, with prejudice, due to misconduct by the prosecution that was so deliberately obtuse that some might say that it was intentional. And the defendant waltzed away a free man.
If you or I had been indicted in similar circumstances, I rather doubt that either one of us would today be assaulting journaliists on the streets of NYC, or yukking it up on Saturday Night Live. But that’s life, I guess.
llater,
llamas
If Mr Kirk was NOT wearing body armour then there is no mystery as to why the bullet to his neck killed him.
Paul:
Charlie was not wearing body armour. There is no mystery as to why a 30.06 bullet killed him. What is a mystery is why it did not penetrate his body. So far the only explanation for this is that it is a miracle.
Llamas:
The Mauser was a fairly ordinary hunting rifle. They were made and sold in 30.06 for the American market back in the 1950s and 60s. This rifle was the accused man’s grandfather’s, and he had inherited it, but all I have read says he was not a keen hunter or shooter.
I think you would agree that a standard hunting rifle does not disassemble in “one second”, as one TV “expert” claimed. Even “disassembled”, you have a stock and barrel/action each about 30 inches long. I look at the photos of the man climbing the stairs on to the roof, and the man fleeing the roof, and I do not see a rifle. Who am I going to believe, the FBI or my lying eyes?
JohnK – once again, you have been misinformed.
Mauser did/does indeed make hunting rifles in cakibre 30.06, and has done so for a century or more.
However, according to press reports, the rifle recovered in this case is not one of those. It is reported to be a military Mauser Gewehr 1898, originally chambered in the German military calibre of 8mm, and then re-barreled to 30.06. This model of rifle was manufactured between 1898 and 1935 and has a variety of details which identify it as being a military model rather than a commercial sporting rifle. A number of these weapons were commercially re-barreled after WW1 by German and other manufacturers seeking to exploit war surplus materiel into the US market, and not-a-few were re-barrelled war trophies brought to the US by returning doughboys and GIs after both world wars. If it is truly what has been described, then it is a rather-unusual beast, although not unique. However, even if it not what has been claimed (and the claim has been very specifically reported in multiple outlets) and it is, in fact, a commercial Mauser sporting rifle from the 50’s and 60’s, which is your latest unsubstantiated suggestion, it would still be quite a rara avis in the US. Imported Mausers were (and are) an expensive and somewhat-exclusive option which never found much favour with US sportsmen, who already had/have a vast range of top-quality choices from US manufacturers at significantly-lower prices.
You really should learn a bit more about the subject in which you have chosen to invest so much of your belief. Many/most of the facts about the weapon recovered and the ammunition used have not been made public, and so it appears that you’re constructing a large fabric of belief upon a very small basis of actual data, and much of your effort now appears to involve finding possible explanations that bolster your belief. Better, pethaps, to either wait for data, or to accept that the data will be a long time coming, if ever, and we may never know clearly the precise details of what occurred.
llater,
llamas
Llamas:
Maybe you are right, I don’t mind if you are, I read different information it seems.
The point is rather moot. The fact is that this was a 30.06 hunting rifle of a standard type, ie not one which can be taken down without using a screwdriver on the stock bolts.
The 30.06 round is powerful, I hope we can agree, but we have been told that Charlie’s neck bones were so young and strong that they miraculously stopped the bullet. It is true there is no exit wound, but if you really believe in miraculous vertebrae then I do not share your belief. There are questions to answer.
As I have said, the photos of a slim young man going up on to the roof and then climbing down from it do not appear to show a rifle or any means of concealing one. But perhaps you know different?
Charlie Kirk was murdered by a leftist university student from a Mormon family (his family turned him in – or convinced him to turn himself in), Charlie Kirk was NOT murdered by Jews.
What we do not know is whether other leftists knew, in advance, that Charlie Kirk was going to be murdered – it is THIS that the FBI should be asking questions about.
JohnK wrote:
“As I have said, the photos of a slim young man going up on to the roof and then climbing down from it do not appear to show a rifle or any means of concealing one. ”
Well, obviously, you are unaware of the great expansion in recent years of a whole family of rifles and carbines which are specifically designed to fold or collapse in seconds, often without the use of tools, into compact packages less than 18 inches long, which are easily concealed under eg a sweatshirt or jacket. Short-barrelled rifles, pistol-calinre carbines, folding carbines, collapsible-stock weapons, the selection is vast and many of these weapons have the accuracy and power to do, what this shooter did. You might want to consider that, while the Mauser rifle and ammunition was found nearby, there’s no testimony or forensic evidence that it was ever on the roof, and to this point, the ballistic and forensic evidence about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk has not been made public – so we don’t even know whether it came from the rifle that was found. You assume that, because Charlie Kirk was shot, and because a rifle was found nearby, that he was shot with that rifle – but you have precisely zero evidence to support that theory. And then you try and explain evidence that contradicts that theory with references to – what?
I’m not suggesting an alternative theory of the crime, I’m merely pointing out – again – how very little we know of the facts, and how dangerous it is to try and formulate a complete story of what happened based upon
such sparse information.
llater,
llamas
Llamas,
I think the official story is that the Mauser is the murder weapon. If it is not, that’s another can of worms opened.
I know there are rifles and carbines which have folding stocks and the like, my point was that the Mauser is not one of them. There is a theory that with the stock and barrel unscrewed you get two 30 inch pieces which could be concealed under clothing. Maybe that is true, but the man photographed on the stairs is just in light clothing, which would not offer much concealment. It is interesting that only still images have been released. If he were trying to walk with two parts of a disassembled rifle lodged under his shirt that might be a bit more apparent.