So, the people you claim are witnesses as the bandwagon. That your argument, that the assassination was real, hindges on.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

So, the people you claim are witnesses as the bandwagon. That your argument, that the assassination was real, hindges on.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

So, the people you claim are witnesses as the bandwagon. That your argument, that the assassination was real, hindges on.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

So, the people you claim are witnesses as the bandwagon. That your argument, that the assassination was real, hindges on.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Same as above - good practical effects don't require AI. So this theory competes with the AI theory you started with.

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?

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.