New Candace Owens Grift: Physics-Defying Exploding Microphone Theory For... Idiots First it was a shot from below the table (secret tunnel). Then she said it came from behind. Later she confirmed: "And this is going to dispel a lot of theories that are out there. And I'm telling you this 100%. Charlie Kirk was shot from the front, and the bullet did not exit. And at least a fragment of the bullet was recovered from his neck." Now she wants you to believe an “exploding microphone” under his shirt in front of thousands, delivered lethal force with zero burn marks, zero visible explosion, and zero torn fabric. Newton’s 3rd Law begs to differ. Enough energy to kill a man, but not enough to rip a shirt? We're officially in flat earth territory now. This is the Candace Conspiracy Network in action: moving goalposts, ignoring physics, making fantastical claims, accusing the innocent, bashing widows, and cashing in on tragedy.**show more

For all those who doubt me, here is a... video demonstration of this: This is a 0.223 caliber 5.56 NATO bullet shot from an AR-15-style rifle with a muzzle energy of 1300 ft-lb (1763 J). The substance it is being shot into is a ballistics gel specifically engineered to replicate human tissue. As you can see in the video when the bullet stops, the kinetic energy is transferred to the surrounding area, creating that puff effect you see from Charlie’s shirt. There was no exploding microphone. Charlie died from a bullet to his neck. Stop listening to people like Candy Owens and Ian Carroll who have no idea what they’re talking about.show more

Exploding Mic Debunked... Again, By Basic Physics Newton’s 3rd... Law is non negotiable: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the microphone allegedly exploded with enough force to kill a man, the mic itself should have been violently blasted away from the direction of the supposed blast. Instead, it travels in the same direction as the alleged explosion. That’s not how physics works. And that’s before we even get to the rest of the fantasy: • No flash • No smoke • No burn marks on skin or clothing • A thin white t-shirt somehow contains a lethal blast wave with zero tearing or residue • The weak Rode magnetic mount stays perfectly attached Every single one of these details is physically impossible for a real explosive event. This is high-school physics and observable reality. The "Exploding Mic" is an IQ test.show more

You obviously have a low iq and don’t understand... how guns work. This video proves his body reaction was from a impact from the front 100%. You have a iq under 70 if you think getting shot in the back would push you backwards. You obviously do t understand physics and the kinetic energy of a bullet.show more

.Candace Owens completely forgot that she did an entire... episode accusing Charlie of lying to her. Now she’s telling people not to believe Andrew Kolvet because she claims he called Charlie a liar. By the way, Andrew never said Charlie was a liar. The reality is that Charlie always had to do unusual things when it came to his “friendship” with Candace. Cc:Blake Neff Erika Kirk Tyler Bowyer Paramount Tactical - Gary Meltonshow more

JUST IN: Candace Owens now claims she has proof... the U.S. Military was involved in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Owens says she received an email from “a man in the military” which she claims she received last night. “It feels like today will be the day that the government can no longer deny it. Charlie Kirk was assasinated and our military was involved.”show more

BEGGED HIS WIFE TO COME TO THE SHOW JUST... TO DO THIS SHIT IN FRONT OF HER AND OH MAN SHE IS LUCKY THAT MICROPHONE WAS IN THE WAY THAT NIGHTshow more

Concha: I’ll be happy to attach a name to... the conspiracy theorist. Candace Owens is insane and the fact that she mocks Erika Kirk is a whole bowl of wrong and she deserves to be called out. Gaines: I'm glad you said that. Concha: Candace Owens is insaneshow more

‼️🇺🇸: BULLET "FRAGMENT" RECOVERED IN CHARLIE KIRK AFTER 'MIRACLE... BULLET' STORY FROM TPUSA 👀 A defense motion in the Tyler Robinson Charlie Kirk murd3r trial revealed the prosecution claims that a bullet fragment has been recovered from the body. Andrew Kolvet TPUSA spokesman said that the surgeon said the 30-06 rifle bullet was miraculously lodged in Charlie's body after the assassination intact, but now it's a bullet fragment? 🤔show more

Candace Owens continues to prove how gullible her low... IQ fans are. Just a couple of weeks ago the conspiracy was that nobody called 911 after Charlie was shot. Her minions went crazy over it for a few days. Now that conspiracy is stale. So the new conspiracy is that they did call 911 but now somehow thats a bad thing. When just a couple of weeks ago the talking points were that it was bad that no one called 911. This is just another example of how Candace constantly lies and contradicts herself from week to week. She cries and accuses people of being paid to attack her when they debunk her fake conspiracies meanwhile she’s constantly debunking her own conspiracies with new ones.show more

This is the offical size of the cavity that... would have been in Charlie's chest..... IF that PETN charge in his RODE™ microphone went off properly. It had a O2 deficiency because it was suffocated by the housing and then fabric with no space. Candace Owensshow more

Exactly. While this is true, it’s also irrelevant in... the grand scheme of things. Ross was at fault, period. Here’s why: First off, it’s against DHS policy & training for an officer to approach a vehicle from the front in this situation, and this “officer-induced jeopardy” negates the officers use of force claim and puts him at fault, period. There’s no debate on this as video evidence from multiple sources clearly show Ross stopping in front of her vehicle, and then taking the time to shift his phone from his right hand to his left so he can draw his weapon…BEFORE she even started moving. THIS is simply reality, and the conversation should end here. Second, it’s against DHS Use of Deadly Force policy (which is codified law) to fire at a moving vehicle that doesn’t pose imminent danger to officers, and even if they ARE in danger, it mandates deescalation before using deadly force, which EXPRESSLY states simply “moving out of the way” of a vehicle as a correct course of action before using deadly force (see attached doc below). Third, there is already well-established legal precedent governing these EXACT types of situations, and this officer would likely be found guilty by any jury in the U.S. For example: Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Fifth, the videos/pics below CLEARLY show the officer was NOT in immediate danger, and the woman was moving away from him when he fired his FIRST shot when he was already clear to the left of the vehicle, and he fired the second & third shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of the vehicle as she passed. That alone is enough to send him to prison, even if his first shot was somehow inexplicably deemed to be justified.show more

I always find it interesting that people say "explosion"... on Charlie when the further you get away from Charlie, the louder that gunshot sound is. To me, that gunshot sounds like you would expect it to sound if you were near it and it sounds like you would expect it to sound if you were a few hundred yards away. I understand how phone microphones work and compress, but NOT ONE PODSLOPPER has debunked the acoustic proof that this was a gunshot, NOT ONE. Until you debunk that, YOU HAVE NOTHING. In this comparison, I turned the VOLUME UP on the closer microphone, you can tell I did it, it is not scientific, but believe your eyes and ears. NO EXPLOSION ON CHARLIE. Candace Owens Baron Colemanshow more

‼️🇺🇸: THERE IT IS: FEDS COULD NOT MATCH BULLET... IN CHARLIE KIRK TO TYLER ROBINSON'S GUN 👀 "ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson." "defense may very well decide to offer the testimony of the ATF firearm analyst as EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE." This means they believe this likely good enough on its own to prove Tyler Robinson is innocent. If Tyler Robinson did not shoot Charlie, WHO SHOT HIM?! 🤔show more