Let's face it, we all wanted Zio-cons to start waking up and call out Israel. Charlie Kirk did. He may not have been the most vocal and didn't (yet) turn fully against them, but he touched the third rail more than once and most likely paid the ultimately price for it. What more can you ask for?
He called out Oct 7th as a stand down by Israel, and even mentioned that Bibi was having political trouble before that event / needed a distraction. Do you think Bibi has forgotten that?
He also called out Epstein as Mossad linked and brought people to TPUSA events saying the same. That is a real big no-no in Zio-world.
Frankly, what he did publicly is more than most of us have done or will do. So, show respect when it is due. I salute Charlie Kirk for his service to America and to humanity. He refused to be a slave to the Synagogue of Satan.
Sure. The argument you made just now is logical fallacy. You just appealed to the authority.
You avoided the content of the video, ignored the 3 glaring AI facts, cognitive dissonance is when you don't accept information right in front of you face.
As for why they didn't do a better job at AI, I can only speculate. Perhaps they don't mind being a bit obvious, CK was throwing symbols and the media is doing it's "33" thing again. I don't know about you, but I'm totally over being a sheep. I will no longer just shrug shoulders and assume they are being honest.
The ring moved fingers, the clumps of blood are evaporating as they fall, and the shirt shirt is not getting much blood on it. The letters, look a little messed up when you watch it frame by frame.
Maybe, and this is spectacular speculation, they didn't expect the enough people would watch frame by frame, and that's why they didn't care that AI wasn't perfect.
Also, not sure if you realize what controlling the media actually means, but since the literally control the media, they don't have to worry about the media reporting these AI errors to the masses.
Why are you cog dis? Why are mentally lazy?
That's not appeal to authority. Appeal to authority would be saying Charlie Kirk got killed for real because the news/government agencies said so.
That was an appeal to common sense - if they want to fake something, they can do it at such a level that you'd never notice anything sus with it. I mean, they do it for movies, of course they can pull it off irl too.
It's also Occam's razor - it'd be easier to pull off a good ol' assassination from hundreds of yards away than to make an AI hologram (or practical effects and AI for the video footage) of the guy getting killed in front of hundreds of witnesses. If you can do something for real you don't fake it and we all know they can easily assassinate people and that's their specialty, long before AI, computers or even guns existed. In the end the effect is the same and if the method is cleaner and safer, it makes sense they'd go with it.
That's a non sequitur and a strawman. Of course they're not honest and it's all planned from above. Of course they embed their symbolism in their psy ops. Symbolism is only obvious if you can interpret it correctly which normies can't obviously. But what does any of that have to do with it being AI circus and not a real assassination JFK/MLK/Lincoln style?
On the contrary - mental laziness would be going with a sweeping statements like "everything is fake and staged" instead of using discernment and reason. Why not go even further and say Charlie Kirk never existed and he was played by actors using a mask or maybe an AI hologram? Where is the threshold of what is reasonable?
Idk why but such pragmatic reasoning is kryptonite for conspiracy theorists.
You are believing the news. And I was wrong, your appeal was to popularity, than bandwagon argument, or argumentum ad populum. Thanks for making me double check you fallacy.
Avoiding data and information, purely because it contradicts your held views is called cognitive dissonance, a common symptom of liberalism.
Also, an appeal to common sense would be to recognize the fucking content I pointed out. Ring finger to pinkly finger, huge globs of blood evaporate as they fall. ..etc. The content. Not how it "must" be fake ori must have mis viewed it, because it just can't me be possible. That's seriously not thinking. There are impossible facts in your face. And you only want to not look at them. That's lazy.
You know what your next argument is? (Try plugging this all into GPT and asking it what logical fallacy you are using). I knew this one. If they really did it, then would have done better, so that means, they didn't do it
It's fallacy of presumptive reasoning, and argument from incredulity, assume a false dilemma. It's crap. They can easily get away with it, and worse. They control all the media, even if they make it obvious, who cares, what are a few close watching people gonna do? Nothing.
So that argument is done too. Anymore? Let's read on...
Occams razor....not a strong point because both are easy. With full control of media, government, infinity money....both are easy. So....I don't know if you realize it, but that's not a good reason to ignore the data here.
No, Its disclosure. I disclosed speculation for AFTER the point. Was it fake. Yes, then "why" or how. Doesn't really matter of I am right or wrong, because the video is still AI.
You must be new at critical thinking.
Saying everything is fake and gay isn't lazy, it's an observation you realize once you actually wake all the way up. It's way fucking worse than you know.
You believe the news too because you don't realize Charlie Kirk is not even a real person. Wake up, sheeple.
No, I don't believe the narrative that's given by msm. Not agreeing that the shooting was staged doesn't mean I believe their story. It's a non sequitur.
Lol, no it was not. What part of "They didn't have the budget to have proper AI?" is an appeal to majority opinion? You can simply refute me without making up non-existent fallacies. An argument can be logically sound and still be false you know. I already told you my argument was a reasonable objection.
Wrong again. That's called cherry picking.
If you don't understand something it's best not to use it to sound smart because it backfires.
Could be poor quality artefacts from the video released. Still makes sense they'd put out better quality AI that doesn't mess fingers up like it's 2018. But suppose it's AI - what did the people in attendance see then?
So, the people you claim are witnesses as the bandwagon. That your argument, that the assassination was real, hindges on.
You ignored the 3 point made in the video because you want me to trust that the "witnesses" watching the show unfold on stage are more reliable than slow motion frame by frame visual evidence of AI.
That's called cherry picking now? Ok, fine. I don't fucking care if you don't want to call ignoring information that goes against your current view cog dis. We can call it cherry pickin. Whatever.
You said I was wrong again, but looks like i haven't been wrong yet.
I'm going to now explain what I think the audience saw, but Im surprised you can speculate this basic theory yourself. The audience saw a fake assassination. Like watching a magic show, or a play, they saw some special effects and heard a gunshot.
And like the moon landing videos, totally stupid and easy to see how it was made in a studio, because people believe what is presented to them, they don't really think hard that it might be a fake. And the absolute fact that they control the narrative anyway, means they don't need to pay that much attention to the details, a few fringe "conspiracy theorists" that play it frame by frame are easily silenced. You really don't want to see a bigger picture? I don't get it. Then why say kirk is not real? That touches on a deeper theory that cannot be proven...but I digress.
"But the audience saw Charlie Kirk fall. And they saw blood. ". Well, actors pretend to die all the time. And there are blood packets that explode, all kinds of special effects.
But what about all the people on stage and the paramedics. Cabal tools, actors. They have thousands of them.
As for Charlie being here as a host, not a "real" person, I suppose you mean like trump, Elon, Putin, Obama, fucking Oprah and people like lady gaga...or anyone else in the main stream and political world. I agree they are at a level that we cannot Access, maybe not humans...but what then? Spirits? Another species that share our plane? How do you believe that works?