BRAND NEW: FRANK TUREK CAUGHT WATCHING DRONE STREAM AT MOMENT CHARLIE KIRK WAS UNALIVED? This research builds on my last video and makes the case stronger than before.
DEFINITIVE: Frank’s phone screen is neither black, nor simply reflecting things behind him. Those are real images on his screen from the UVU setting around him, moving very fast, ruling out FaceTime.
INCLUDES: Extensive footage of Charlie being swarmed by several military-grade miniature drones on all sides, right before, during & after being k*lled. The one whose stream Frank appears to be watching traveled ~150-210 feet in about 6 seconds, which means it moved at about 17-24 MPH—ruling out body cam as well. I might even have found a visual of it.
MANY NEW QUESTIONS: *Why were military grade drones there? *Who was controlling the drones if the security team was busy doing crowd control? *Were any of the drones involved in Charlie’s death? *Who has the drone footage? *There’s a lot of drones & drone footage I didn’t include. Feel free to post in the comments.
DISCLAIMER: I’m not accusing Frank of any wrongdoing or involvement in Charlie’s death. I just want the truth about the drones. Please like, retweet, and leave a comment before watching since this is long and will need a little algorithm help. Feel free to change your comment after watching, or bookmark and watch later. Thank you. Go max!
This analysis is disturbingly convincing. It is speculation but the evidence and presentation fit together very well and are easy to follow.
I am agnostic about who did the killing, but did speculate early on that a military-grade drone could have been the weapon. Parker is not claiming that.
He is showing military-grade drones (plural) moving in and around Kirk immediately before, during and after he was murdered.
It is important to recognize as we speculate about this event that military-grade psyops are highly advanced and could be planting false evidence to discredit observations like these.
Similarly, Mitch, who appeared on Candace, could be a plant to discredit her work. ABN
We have black ABS plastic fragmentation in the floorboard of the SUV that took Charlie to the hospital. There are flat balck and glossy black fragments scattered in between the seats exactly where Charlie’s body was loaded into the SUV.
Røde wireless transmitters/receivers use a durable black ABS-like plastic housing (rigid, matte black interior and a glossy black exterior). While these cases are tough and resist normal drops, extreme mechanical force (e.g., impact, crush, or a explosive force) can cause the plastic to fracture into small, irregular shards — exactly like the tiny black pieces visible in the photo.
Thanks to Candace Owens for providing the details that bring it all together once again.
A lot of the disagreement here comes from what kind of emergence people are talking about.
Most philosophers are perfectly fine with weak (scientific) emergence. Temperature, liquidity, elasticity, traffic jams, economies, etc. all emerge from lower-level interactions. They’re not properties of single particles, but once you understand the micro-story, there’s nothing mysterious left over. Crucially, all of these are structural or functional properties, describable entirely in third-person terms.
The worry about consciousness isn’t really about complexity. It’s about the fact that consciousness seems to involve an experiential aspect — there being something it is like — and critics argue that this doesn’t follow from structural or functional descriptions in the same way temperature or liquidity do.
Similarly, when people say “you can’t open the skull and point to consciousness,” they’re not making a naïve spatial claim. The point is that no amount of third-person description of neurons, firings, or networks seems to capture or entail first-person phenomenal qualities like pain or redness.
So you see, consciousness isn’t treated as special because it’s complex, but because it seems to introduce a different kind of property — phenomenal experience — that standard emergence stories were never designed to explain. Whether that really is a problem is exactly what the debate is about.
First, the defense conflict: Michael Burt (high-profile SF attorney) is directly related to Terryl Farnsworth (the TPUSA AV guy who yanked SD cards post-hit and contaminated the scene). Michael is on Tyler Robinson’s legal team—despite family loyalty to the very insiders with access to Charlie’s stage setup. This is a blatant conflict of interest. How can Tyler get a fair trial when his own lawyer is tied to suspects who controlled audio, cameras, and evidence? It’s screaming setup—Tyler’s being railroaded as the patsy while real players skate.
Next, the aviation link: Terryl’s father-in-law Duane Burt held top executive roles at Duncan Aviation (Utah facility)—where those Egyptian-registered planes (flagged in Charlie’s threats and pre-attack searches) were located the day of the execution. Duane’s expertise and connections in elite aviation circles put this family smack in the middle of the “Egyptian planes” mystery. Coincidence? Or direct access to the tools needed for a sophisticated hit?
The bigger picture: The Farnsworth-Burt clan is embedded in Utah’s powerful “Mormon Mafia”—intermarried elite families (often sharing polygamous pioneer roots) who dominate politics, business, and institutions in Mormon-heavy states. Known for insider networks, loyalty to establishment figures like the Romneys, and quiet control over key sectors—these aren’t random players; they’re connected old-guard protecting their own.
This web—TPUSA insiders, defense sabotage, aviation anomalies, Mormon power ties—proves the fix is in. No way it’s all coincidence.
The above link provides an informative video and a great deal of apparently relevant information to Tyler Robinson’s defense team and the kinds of military-grade weapons and communication devices that may have been used in Kirk’s murder.
I am posting this under ‘information’ and ‘speculation’ for readers who know more about Utah than I do. This material comes from Project Constitution who has previously uncovered reliable information on the Kirk murder. ABN
I have watched only a 20 min excerpt of this video, but am posting because what I saw is stimulating to the imagination and provides a serious analysis of what might have really happened to Charlie Kirk and who did it. Surprised to find it on YouTube. ABN
UPDATE: I’ve now watched the whole video. It’s an excellent overview of the Kirk killing, replete with many illuminating details which thoroughly debunk the official narrative we have been told so far. One of the best breakdowns I’ve seen. Highly recommended. ABN
American Buddhist Net 