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.
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?
Asking "what did the people in attendance see then?" is not an ad marjoram. It's a reasonable question asking if the shooting is AI generated what actually took place irl? Read a damn logic and critical thinking 101 book and try again.
I addressed the glitches in the video actually. Videos can be manipulated (AI is video manipulation itself). Of course witnesses are more reliable, especially when there are hundreds of them - this is a tenant in criminal law.
What if Charlie did get shot but they manipulated the released videos to make it look like the angle was different? Even if the video has signs of it being tampered with, it still doesn't prove the event didn't take place.
This leads me to the next argument - why would they use AI instead of practical effects that will look convincing both on video and irl? You mean to tell me they used practical effects but then decided to add glitchy AI on top to make it less believable? Again, it doesn't make sense. You have to run with one or the other - either it was fake AI blood that goes nowhere or it's fake blood that looks and behaves exactly like the real thing.
Same as above - good practical effects don't require AI. In this case AI tries to emulate what practical effects can accomplish which is realistic physics and acting. So this theory competes with the AI theory you started with.
I don't have any reason to believe they're not human. But humans are fallen and weak and they do the bidding of those above them (Hidden Hand/Committee of 300) who run a satanic agenda to enslave and destroy humanity.
My verdict is he was killed for real based on the evidence. There is enough motivation for them to do it too. They also have the means and have done similar ops in the past. It's not a tough case.
They created the narrative they wanted - if they wanted people to realize it was all staged they would have made sure normies are convinced of it by blasting it all over msm. They don't care about what a small minority of conspiracy guys think because it changes nothing and we can't start a civil war.
The people there have nothing to do with content and points made i. The video. that was the subject. Anyway, I think you agree that people witnessing is worth a question but that mentioning, as we also wonder what they saw....but witnesses who barely saw a trick on stage doesn't negate the AI video argument.
Criminal law is like banks, way behind the tech. Remember when Instant replay was possible for professional sports but technically the referees couldn't use it to decide. The witnesses are shit for telling you what happened. if we took all the videos and compared them, it would make a more solid argument there was AI involved.
But adding more witnesses in the crown won't really change anything. They could barely see.
You asked why they would mix AI and practical effects. And then claim that doesn't make sense...but there are very good reasons why. I'm sure if you tried, you could think of them. I just kinda sick of this getting no where Convo. You shut everything down.
But looks like you believe in the satanists theory, but have you researched Kirks satanic symbols and connections? He is one of them, that's why this could be faked.
Hitler was one of them, he took out Germany for the Jews. Why wouldn't this be possible