When I first encountered that theory, I didn’t care to even look at the arguments. I suspected people posting such theories of being cognitive-infiltrators or trolls. But then, the ballistic issues kept point me to that possibility, until I stumbled upon this 19-minute “breakdown” video by Ben Werhman, which I invite everyone to watch.
I am not sure this theory is correct, but I believe it is plausible and deserves consideration. However, I consider the trail of the freemasons, mentioned in this video, as a red herring (unless we’re talking of B’nai B’rith). In my view, the theory of Kirk’s fake death does not contradict the theory that Israel decided to eliminate Kirk for the reasons that have so widely circulated that even Netanyahu has felt the need to dismiss them. The theory of Kirk’s fake death simply means that Kirk was given the chance to be disappeared alive, instead of dead. That Israel masterminded the event is all the more likely that Kirk’s security was reportedly Israeli, as Kirk himself seems to imply in this conversation with Bill Maher: “If you want security, the Israeli know what’s their doing.” He is probably referring to the Zionist-owned Shaffer Security Group, who ended their contract with TPUSA in 2022, but reportedly reappeared for Kirk’s final event. A security team is supposed to secure the roofs, I remind you.
Ben Werhman’s theory is that Kirk’s gun wound and death was faked with a blood squib equipped with a small remote control explosive, exactly as they always do it in Hollywood. I will recap his arguments, and then I will see how this theory dovetails with another interesting theory concerning Erika Kirk.
A major factor supporting this hypothesis and video is we never see much blood on the ground, on other people, or in the scene of Kirk being carried to the SUV, a very unusual thing to do in a case like this.
Maybe by this point Kirk had already bled out, but where’s the blood in any of the earlier scenes?
I am posting this essay and video as speculative but significant information.
Guyénot provides some interesting conjecture on Erika Kirk in the article linked above.
None of this would be necessary if we had reason to believe the FBI. All of this is necessary since we have a very long history of reasons to not believe the FBI. ABN
UPDATE: I once assisted the FBI in a case that made national news.
The investigation went on for a number of weeks and I spent more than a few hours helping the FBI agent who asked many questions.
I am mentioning this because that agent was very good.
I knew many details of the case and she absorbed those details and other information I had with professional calm and clarity.
The end result was the FBI did not prosecute, which was the correct conclusion for them to have reached.
I helped with the case because I knew the parties involved were all innocent.
It’s good to remember there are many good people in our government. ABN
American Buddhist Net 