Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

KOZAK CHRONICLES & THE ASS*SSINATION NARRATIVE PRODUCTION NETWORK: On September 13th, 2025, a sometimes smiling Taylor Belle Dean appeared with her Aunt Tiffany Barker on NewsNation to tell us: 'They Shot Charlie', that at first they 'Thought it was a firework', and that we have to 'remember Jesus, that's...

58,758 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

THE MYSTERIOUS CASE OF THE OTHER MICROPHONE MAN: COOPER BROWN—AND THE ORIGINAL WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT IN THE CHEST Candace Owens Baron Coleman Jimmy Dore 18 minutes after Charlie Kirk was k*lled, Cooper Brown infamously physically stopped Jeb Jacobi from telling us Charlie had been shot in the neck. That was at 12:42 PM MDT. And then Cooper himself went on Fox News later that day to tell us the exact same thing at about 6:35 PM MDT. Have you ever wondered what explains this sequence of events? It might have something to do with the fact that there seemed to be an original narrative earlier in the afternoon that Charlie had been shot in the chest, but which was soon changed to the story we know now that he'd been shot in the neck. Shot in the chest = Narrative 1.0 Shot in the neck = Narrative 2.0 One witness, "Sarah from Draper", went on national TV at 1:17 PM MDT to tell us that Charlie had been shot in the chest (Narrative 1.0). Then she went on TV again at 2:08 PM MDT, just 51 minutes later, and changed her story to Charlie having been shot in the neck (Narrative 2.0). When Jeb Jacobi told everyone that Charlie had been shot in the neck, it's possible that Cooper Brown was still operating on the pre-established Narrative 1.0, "Shot in the chest," and Cooper intervened to stop Jeb's narrative from getting out. At that moment in time, from Cooper's POV (allegedly), the official Narrative (1.0) was supposed to be a chest shot. Later, after the Narrative had to be modified to 2.0, Cooper went on national news to help establish the new version—along with the rest of the fake narrative: that Charlie had been taken out by a disgruntled Leftist. Nevermind that Tyler Robinson hadn't yet been captured. ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION SCENARIO (ALLEGEDLY): Charlie's mic or necklace was supposed to explode, simulating a .30-06 shot to the chest. Something unanticipated happened creating a neck wound. Cooper's back was to the scene as it happened, so he didn't see the neck wound. But he did inadvertently tell us that he turned around due to the sound of the "POP!" (which must have come from behind him to his right). This was the Rode Mic (or maybe necklace) exploding. Once the police herded everyone into the Sorenson Student Center, that's where we got the confrontation between him and Jeb Jacobi. Cooper didn't yet know the shifted narrative: he hadn't seen what happened, and was still programmed to enforce Narrative 1.0, the chest shot. About 35 minutes after the Brown/Jacobi altercation, "Sarah From Draper"—herself still operating on Narrative 1.0—went on TV to tell us Charlie was shot in the chest. Sometime after that, whomever was orchestring this narrative control and cover-up, issued the new directive: Narrative 2.0, Charlie was shot in the neck. And just 51 minutes later, Sarah was paraded out on TV again to establish the new tall tale. And then Cooper Brown was sent onto Fox News, not once but twice: once the evening of the 10th, and another time in the early afternoon on September 11th. The second time, he helped parrot the other critical part of the anchoring narrative: that Charlie had been taken out by a disgruntled Leftist. And then, "ABRACADABRA!" a few hours later, Tyler Robinson would turn himself in. And the rest, as they say, is history. NOTES ON JEB JACOBI: Some have observed Jeb Jacobi's odd video rehearsal with Phil Lyman a few minutes after Charlie's death, just before the altercation with Cooper Brown. Why was he rehearsing his testimony that Charlie had been shot in the neck? Is it because it was different from the original narrative he was supposed to give us? It's also been noted that Jacobi was the only other person known to have covered his ears or grabbed his head, besides Hunter Kozak, when Charlie was killed. Why were they the only ones in the crowd that reacted this way? Then, somehow, Jacobi appeared on "60 Minutes" with Hunter Kozak, where they both helped anchor the original narrative that Leftist violence is the problem and that we need more open dialogue. This helped reinforce the "trans-furry Leftist Tyler Robinson did it" patsy narrative. Was the Jacobi-Brown altercation a case of two different hands of the same corrupt body reacting on the fly to a situation that had gone awry—not realizing that they were each playing a movie role for the same Director? DISCLAIMER: This is just a possible theoretical interpretation of events, given the information we have, and no actual guilt is being imputed, nor am I making any accusations. H/t: Charliesangels47 for finding the before and after Sarah footage.

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

63,922 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The most SICKENING thing is how Charlie Kirk's entire show and company moved on like nothing ever even happened. Also, come to find out that Charlie Kirk had a CATHOLIC funeral and was buried in a CATHOLIC cemetery. Strange how they hid this information. Almost like it ruins their narrative and agenda that Charlie didn't just "like the architecture of Catholic churches," and shows that maybe Charlie was about to convert to Catholicism like we were told in the first place, but was then covered up. I will tell you that you first need to understand who these people really are and the control and funding behind them. Charlie started to steer away from what they wanted him to do. Charlie started to notice the TRUTH and the LIES and he started to tell the world. The people funding Charlie's company didn't like that and neither did the people under Charlie who were getting paid. Charlie chose the road of TRUTH, while the others chose not to lose the FUNDING of the DONORS and a plan was made that did not include Charlie, but Charlie owned the company. This was a major problem. Charlie was then eliminated and removed and TPUSA continues the direction that THEY wanted to go. Not CHARLIE'S direction or to push the TRUTH... The direction that the MONEY tells them to go and the agenda and narratives they are told to push. It's time to wake up from your slumber and understand that Charlie was assassinated for telling the truth and calling out the lies and corruption. They couldn't afford to be exposed, so they killed him. It's clear as day. cc: Candace Owens

The SCIF

203,389 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Why is there such a UNIQUE INTEREST in the WOODBURY building? Who really is GEORGE ZINN, and HUNTER KOZAK, and why did Charlie really turn down $150 MILLION? Remember the gentleman who was arrested that was dressed in scrubs with a doctor's coat on went directly to the WOODBURY building and crossed the crime scene barrier before he was detained. Police are now seen on top of the building possibly discussing numerous locations for a second shooter. Kash Patel did mention that they have not ruled out this possibility yet. Another person who contacted Candace Owens said that there was more footage, or a longer version that was NOT shown to the public which showed the shooter was with a women at one point. Who is this so called women and where was the alleged shooter seen with this woman? George Zinn is now confirmed to have been at way more events and incidents in history than we previously knew before which points in the direction and an obvious connection to intelligence, whether foreign or domestic. Utah Valley University also has connections to the CIA which ran programs for college students for recruitment purposes. Hunter Kozak who was the last person to ask Charlie Kirk a question who is seen in the video with his armed crossed while everyone else is cheering for Charlie also has some very interesting connections to groups that specifically stalk and disrupt TPUSA events with connections to the streamer named "Destiny" and his "Unfu*k America Tour." Strangely, Hunter Kozak is part of that group and was featured on CNN and now 60 Minutes. Last but not least, we know for a fact there was a lot of inside drama happening, especially when it comes to Charlie being offered money. $150 MILIION to be exact, which would double their yearly budget of a regular $140 MILLION per year. Allegedly Charlie turned it down because he didn't want to mislead his audience and stood for the truth. These are more interesting data points to take into consideration to the overall big picture. What are your thoughts?

The SCIF

118,188 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

CLOSER LOOK: The Terryl Farnsworth segment of the Brian Harpole/Shawn Ryan discussion is full of so much alleged psychological massaging, you simply have to watch it again. Here's what I noticed, and I'm interested to know what you all notice that I may have missed: STRATEGIC OMISSION: They covered Terryl Farnsworth but completely avoided any discussion of him declaring Charlie dead in the secret video recording--which is THE PRIMARY BOMBSHELL in Farnsworth's video. MISQUOTING: They actually get Terryl's quote wrong. Farnsworth said "They shot Charlie," not "Charlie's been shot." Small, but oh-so-BIG difference. MISDIRECTION: Why did they frame his secret selfie as a kind of TikTok "clout posting" when the video wasn't streamed or posted? It's a false framing that implants an incorrect characterization into the minds of the watchers. It feels like an effort to absolve Terryl of something rather than a quest for truth. NEW REVELATIONS: Terryl Farnsworth doesn't actually work for TPUSA as everyone has assumed, rather he worked for a company called Visual Impulse (VI) that TPUSA contracted. Why did TPUSA let that false assumption stand for so long? MARGINALIZATION: They never uttered Terryl Farnsworth's name, and to listen to Brian, you'd think he barely knew who Terryl was--odd since Terryl had security clearance to be inside the "no-go" zone. Is Brian accountable for anything under his security purview?! STRAW MAN: People didn't just object to Farnsworth because he might have deleted or destroyed the footage, which is how Brian & Shawn framed it, they objected to him illegally tampering with the crime scene and possibly destroying critical forensic evidence like the camera placement. SELF-ABSOLUTION: "It's not for me to understand..." Gotcha, Brian. The stairs, the Sorenson Center, the Losee Center, the drones, the rooftops--people inside the perimeter--none of that's your job. Above your pay grade? SMH! Remember: Candace Owens reported that Terryl Farnsworth doesn't normally handle these kinds of events, and that he admitted to her "they were trying something new that day." (Indeed, Farnsworth wasn't at the follow-up Utah event on September 30th) Tell me what you see here, and leave a like and a retweet for the algo, please, so that we can crowdsource this. I feel like there is more going on here. Leave no stone unturned. (BTW: I ascribe no guilt to anyone here, I'm just looking at all the details and seeing where they lead)

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

79,366 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce