>Bill Maher is the most intellectually dishonest television personality
Isn't Maher a member of the Red Shoe Club?
>Projectile comes from the camera behind Charlie.
I initially thought so too. But on further reflection I decided
-
the camera doesn't line up with an entry wound behind the right ear that would exit the left side of the neck.
-
there's no blast, recoil, smoke, or sign of escaping gas. Nothing blows his hair.
I think the shooter was on a service balcony on the building next to the building behind Charlie.
The angle is better.
>You can see the projectile pass by the M.
That's the wire from the microphone radio that Charlie wears (even though he holds another mic in his hands).
I looked at that pretty closely.
>The shot comes from the front
IF that were true, we would see the wound BEFORE the shirt flies up.
Thank you.
>the equipment to be turned over to Authorities
Removing a camera from a crime scene is tantamount to destroying evidence. While I do hope the authorities have the camera and the data now, there's now a chain of custody issue and a possibility that the data was altered.
I can imagine some equipment grip panicked and grabbed the expensive gear before it got impounded or stolen, but I can also imagine someone from a trained team seizing and destroying the evidence against them.
The camera removal was very bad.
Yes.
Somebody made a video.
I doubt he could see under the tent from the top of the building. But the window or the service balcony might work.
>This is qresearch not Reddit
which is exactly why you need to stop posting that fake graphic about the rifle.
The scope is correctly mounted.
FFS.
>Explain your theory using medical terms.
No medical terms required.
-
no wound on neck.
-
shirt flies up.
-
shirt comes down revealing wound on neck.
If the shot came from the front the video would show the wound before the shirt flew up.
It doesn't show that.
>close blood relatives?
There's posts on the innertubes claim Diana is Melania or Diana replaced Melania.
And Elvis is still alive.
Here is some additional clarification, asshole.
There is no hole in the shirt.
The wound appears to happen while the shirt covers the neck.
Since there was no wound before the shirt covered the neck and there is no hole in the shirt but there is wound after the shirt uncovers the neck then the shot did not come from the front.
Any idiot could understand that.
>Except the wound didnt spontaneously appear ventrally as indicated by lack of blood splatter forward
I originally responded to someone else who said "the shot came from the front". I was disposing of his statement with my shirt explanation. Then you wanted to chat.
You make several valid points, but you assume I said he was shot from the rear (ventrally). I did not say that. In fact I didn't recall saying he got shot at all.
IF he was shot, I agree it was likely small caliber and in addition to reasons you mention, I would add sound suppression is more effective with smaller calibers. That would matter if the shooter was close by.
I am not a doctor, but I think Kirk's movement was more of a convulsion than kinetic impact. I don't know about people, but I've shot a lot of animals and they've done all kind of weird things after impact. Sometimes they show kinetic impact. Sometimes they drop dead like they instantly fell asleep with no obvious impact effect. Sometimes they go into convulsions and flip around like fish out of water for several minutes.
Anyway, given the meager evidence that I have seen, which is that video, he wasn't shot from the front.
>notice that the scope on the rifle is MOUNTED BACKWARDS
No the scope isn't mounted backwards. The variable power adjustment ring is toward the shooter.
>I think the thing we can both agree on is if any part of the video is fake the whole op is fake.
yes