THE CLEAREST VERSION OF THE CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION PSYOP❗

this is the clearest I’ve seen it

you can literally see the mic explode 😭

Source: https://x.com/ArtifexMemor/status/2091287960876695965

Thumbnail: https://x.com/DangerousConspr/status/2091300974610538503

UPDATE ON TH 11 MONTH OLD TEXT MESSAGE PROVIDED TO PICKLE RICK FROM TPUSA:

IT’S A FAKE❗

🚨BREAKING:

Even @grok says this image is 85-95% AI generated 🤣💀

For the man who used AI to claim his victory before, it’s not looking good for @paleochristcon

https://x.com/ArtifexMemor/status/2091404075820802211

Adding an interaction from Facebook:

Incurious Dupe: uncle murry, this actually gives me a perfect example of what I’ve been trying to explain.

I looked into the claim you’re apparently referring to about the device clipped to Charlie’s shirt. I’m perfectly willing to ask what happened to that device in the footage. If something about it looks unusual, investigate it. That’s where we agree.

Where we differ is what you’re entitled to conclude from it.

Seeing something unusual happen around a device on Charlie’s shirt does not establish that the device exploded. Even establishing that such an explosive device is technologically possible wouldn’t establish that THIS device contained an explosive. And even if you established that the device exploded, you’d still need additional evidence before jumping all the way to “therefore the assassination was a psyop.”

Those are separate evidentiary steps.

We’d want things like forensic evidence of an explosion, blast damage or explosive residue on the actual device, medical findings consistent with that mechanism, fragments attributable to the device, evidence that the equipment had been modified, or communications/records connecting identifiable people to such a plan. THAT would be positive evidence for the hypothesis.

Putting two video frames next to each other, circling the object, labeling one “Not Exploded” and the other “Exploded,” and then calling the video “THE CLEAREST VERSION OF THE CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION PSYOP” doesn’t establish any of that. “Exploded” is itself the claim that needs to be demonstrated.

And this is exactly why I keep saying I question ALL narratives. If better evidence establishes that the device exploded, I’ll update my position. If forensic evidence establishes some other mechanism caused Charlie’s injury, I’ll update my position. If authenticated evidence establishes a coordinated effort to stage the shooting or frame Tyler, I’ll update my position.

But I’m not going to start with “PSYOP” and then interpret every strange-looking frame as confirmation of it. The pager-bomb comparison has the same problem. Pager bombs existing proves that concealed explosive devices are possible. It doesn’t prove one was used on Charlie. That’s like proving rifles exist and thinking you’ve therefore identified the rifle used in a particular shooting. You still need evidence connecting the proposed mechanism to THIS event.

And this brings me back to the falsifiability question I already asked you. When I challenged whether there was evidence that could establish the psyop hypothesis was wrong, your response was essentially that “we’re beyond that.” But that’s exactly the problem I’m identifying. If we’re already “beyond” the possibility of evidence falsifying the psyop conclusion, then what are we doing with new evidence? Are we actually testing the hypothesis, or are we only asking how each new piece of information can be incorporated into a conclusion that’s already been decided? I can tell you exactly what kinds of evidence would

Incurious Dupe: the thing is, you aren’t asking questions; you were married to Tyler Robinson as the root cause of what happened to Charlie Kirk

From the beginning, I smelled a rat

I’m guessing that you have never checked any of my work prior to this interaction; if you had, you’d see that I liken this to the assassination of Robert Francis Kennedy – the difference being instead of just Jamie Scott Enyart, there were a whole crowd of them, and they all had separate recordings at different angles

Once I lit upon the “just like the exploding pagers” idea, I never let it go

Now, there is some scuttlebutt about a drone, and I posted some of the first information on that, but it is far more complicated than the mic taped to his chest (when he was using a hand mic) was extraneous – didn’t he make some comment like that about it?

NO – OCCAM’S RAZOR SHAVES AWAY ALL OTHER THEORIES

TYLER ROBINSON WAS A DISTRACTION AND POSSIBLY A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE