FreedomForge

Everything wrong with the shape charge/explosion theory and how it fails every metric we see. 0/4 1. A singular audio event happened, one supersonic gunshot was fired that day, there is no escaping that. 2. Prolonged decorticate posturing happened | 5+ second duration before he was pulled down. Impossible with current explosion theory. 3. Trajectory - Not possible with the wound we see, breaks shirt concealment (char), jet visible. 4. Biomechanical Recoil and Energy Displacement - Body movement and energy displacement is nowhere close to an explosion. There is not a single piece of evidence that fits with an explosion narrative. How far are we going to move the goal post on this? Again this is me arguing only the method that killed Charlie, not the narrative. The whole thing is sketchy as hell with a ton more people involved, but as of right now, the only thing that fits his death is a high velocity bullet.

Correct, that is isotropic, not shape. Shape charges normalize that omnidirectional energy into a jet in one direction. That doesn’t mean that energy disappears, it just gets focused in one direction instead of radially. Especially when the standoff distance is suboptimal or poor jet formation, which micro charges have, they become more isotropic. They also have radial leakage which accounts for 10-15% of the energy used. That alone is more than enough to cause disruption. So what are your data values for the incident pressure/impulse depending on the range? 1”-5”. That matters.

@Freedom_ForgeUS Your entire argument collapses on one point: you're using the Kingery-Bulmash calculator, which explicitly models hemispherical free-field air-blast — omnidirectional pressure expanding uniformly in all directions. That's the exact opposite of how a shaped charge works.

Milliseconds of rapid gas expansion.... enough to deform his flesh, blow his hair and accelerate the necklace more in the section that was located where the gas could escape around his jaw line. The same expansive force that destroyed the microphone case sent the microphone components from inside the case across his chest. The PCB got caught in his shirt collar and the battery impacted his neck.

Jesus, you people are sheep. Just do the tiniest bit of research... Incident Pressure - The pressure amount over normal atmospheric pressure, your air pressure shockwave. Incident Impulse - This is the "Push" or what causes physical displacement. A 2g PETN charge (Keep in mind these values are for isotropic blasts, not shape charges. So you will lose an enormous amount of Incident Pressure radially) at a distance of 5m from the source will have 2.67 kPa Incident Pressure and 1.13 Incident Impulse (Picture 1). Shock Front Velocity (m/s): 343.98 - This means the shockwave is no longer supersonic past 5m, it is invisible. Now change the range value to 1" or .02m in the calculator (Picture 2) This is pretty close to how far off his body the charge would have been. Incident Pressure - 25,326 kPa Incident Impulse - 84 kPa Look at the IED testing source below, they used a 150g C4 Charge (IED) at 2.75m (9ft) away and their sensors picked up an incident pressure of 70-90 kPa and an impulse at ~33 kPa. This kPa throws soldiers and attributes to TBI's and other severe internal injuries. So let's compare the impulses: 2g PETN blast (1" standoff) - 85 kPa 150g C4 IED blast (9ft standoff) - 33 kPa This 2g PETN blast nearly tripled the amount of impulse compared to a military grade IED blast which was 75x larger and yet his right shoulder never moved/was intact and his refrigerator strength magnetic clasp stayed on the entire time...Jesus... A visible jerk or enough to throw a person off their center of gravity needs an impulse kPa between .5-2 kPa. Over 30 kPa you will get violently tossed. You people are delusional Sources: Blast Calculation: unsaferguard.org/un-saferguard/… IED Testing: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…

It is humanly impossible to time an explosion with a gunshot. You would have to trigger the explosion before the shot was even fired. No human could have pulled that trigger. I’m not even going to touch on how badly it fails when you factor in the acoustic incompatibilities. An explosion fails radically across every metric. - Trajectory from source to neck wound = impossible - Necklace would be blown downwards and away from source location - Diffuse injuries will never produce IMMEDIATE decorticate posturing. Only a catalyst for secondary injuries which then leads to posturing later. - Shape charge has radial leakage, would have caused visual damage to his shirt - If source was on his collarbone (RODE mic), first movement would be his shoulder being absolutely blasted backwards (see picture attached - 2” standoff range - incident pressure and impulse are the important ones) - (using source attached) - the study uses a 150g C4 charge (IED) at 2.75m away and the sensors picked up overpressure of 70-90kPa and impulse consistent at ~33 kPa. This 2g PETN charge at 2” would produce 3x the amount of impulse kPa as a charge 75x larger. His shirt, his shoulder, everything around that would be absolutely obliterated. There are countless more problems, but I digress. IED source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12… Explosion calculator: unsaferguard.org/un-saferguard/…

@Freedom_ForgeUS @sbldawkins @BlakeBednarz Why was all that signaling and counting down? That was to time the explosion with a gunshot. Why was the venue scraped and paved over? To get rid of the explosive residue.

The level of deflection and mischaracterization of my words here is wild. "Anything beyond the 64° from the trajectory is just disturbed air" - Correct, in your scenario, not in general. That means, no N-wave/Crack, hence what started this conversation with your shooter location and the original image I gave you with multiple velocities all with different Mach angles and No N-wave zones. "The only thing that matters for acoustic localization is the N-wave" - You are taking my words out of context, this was strictly regarding your scenario and how the Mach cone works and the product of said Mach cone = N-wave. This has nothing to do with TDOA and detecting shooter distance. This directly has to do with what Mic's pick up a N-wave where depending on the Mach cone. "What produces the N-wave is the Mach cone" - ? When did I say it was produced by the muzzle? This conflation is backwards??? If I say "This mic picked up a N-wave." That means that Mach Cone passed over that mic. Meaning, the only way that N-wave was produced, was through...the Mach cone. "The Mach cone only exists in front of the muzzle within its Mach angle" - Again...I gave a simplified version for the explanation of YOUR scenario at hand. YOU were arguing the Mach cone extended 154°. Which is blatantly false. My argument was, no...the Mach cone exists in front of the muzzle, constrained by both: - Mach angle - Convergence zone 90°-μ I didn't think I needed to explain that it traveled down the bullet's flight path which is self-explanatory. This should not be difficult to understand. "Subsonic projectiles...." - What? Why is this relevant? Once again, I am specifically talking about the issue at hand with your scenario and where the shooter is. - All 4 mic's picked up a crack = In Mach cone sweep - If it is <~800 m/s = No crack, instead muzzle blast in your outer Mic's I honestly have no clue what your response was meant to prove, disprove, explain? No one is talking about TDOA in this situation. I am in no way confusing the muzzle blast for the shockwave. But the shockwave can definitely give you a very good estimate as to where the shooter is. From multiple N-wave measurements across multiple mics, you can determine (Especially if a target is involved): -Trajectory (direction bullet traveled) -Velocity (from Mach angle optimization) -Shooter distance (from velocity + bearing) -Shooter position (where trajectory projects back from target) Why are you still confused about this 800 m/s. This was a constraint based off of YOUR shooter location. If the shooter is at your location, and every single one of the Mic's picked up a crack/N-wave. The Mach angle HAS to be above that velocity, or else, the audio will NOT show a crack/N-wave. It will give you a muzzle blast waveform. You did get one thing right, Maher does say that, good thing I am not using TDOA and that is not relevant to your problem at hand. "There is a 91% match on 115gr 9mm ammo using the same geometry from UVU to the experiment." This is the cherry on top. (~395 m/s) Mach angle: μ = 60° Shockwave convergence = 90°-60° = 30° on either side of trajectory. (Image below) This means no N-wave/crack in: -Mic 9820 -Mic 7

"Anything beyond the 64° from the trajectory is just disturbed air" - This Mach angle is derived from a specific m/s but anything over the speed of sound (343 m/s with environmental variables) creates a shockwave with a different Mach angle. With that in mind. "If the bullet is traveling substantially faster than the speed of sound, the Mach Angle is small and the shock wave propagates nearly perpendicularly to the bullet's trajectory. A bullet traveling only slightly faster than the speed of sound has a Mach Angle approaching 90°, meaning that the shock wave is propagating nearly parallel to the bullet's path. Moreover, as the bullet slows along is path due to friction with the air, the corresponding Mach Angle widens down range." montana.edu/rmaher/publica… "In the end, the only thing that matters for acoustic localization is the N-wave and what produces the N-wave, which is the Mach cone. The Mach cone only exists in front of the muzzle within it's Mach angle, or like Maher pointed out, that shockwave zone." That is a lot to unpack. "The only thing that matters for acoustic localization is the N-wave" - This is flat-out wrong. Maher explicitly identifies three distinct acoustic components in gunshot recordings: the muzzle blast, the ballistic shockwave (which may contain the N-wave signature), and in some cases the mechanical action of the firearm. Maher and Shaw state that audio evidence can include the muzzle blast, the shock wave signature if the projectile is traveling at supersonic speed, and possibly even the characteristic sound of the firearm's mechanical action if the recording is obtained close to the shooting position. montana.edu/rmaher/publica… Critically, the muzzle blast is what localizes the shooter, not the shockwave. The muzzle blast originates from the shooter's position and propagates outward from that fixed point. The shockwave, by contrast, is generated along the bullet's entire flight path — it tells you about the bullet's trajectory, not the shooter's position. In a case where only the shock wave signature is detected, the estimation is limited to the bullet trajectory, caliber and speed, but when a muzzle blast is also detected, the exact shooter position can be estimated. sciencedirect.com/science/articl… If you had to pick to localize a shooter, you would use the muzzle blast. Not the "N-wave"/shockwave. "What produces the N-wave is the Mach cone" This conflation is backwards. The N-wave is the pressure signature observed when the Mach cone sweeps past a sensor. The Mach cone is produced by the supersonic bullet in flight, not by the muzzle. Maher describes that the shock wave ray reaching the microphone is launched when the bullet reaches a given position along its trajectory, and the total time between the gunshot and shock wave arrival consists of the bullet's time-of-flight from the muzzle to that point, plus the shock wave propagation at the speed of sound along the ray path. montana.edu/rmaher/publica… So the shockwave doesn't emanate from a single point — it's generated continuously along the entire trajectory. This is fundamentally different from the muzzle blast. "The Mach cone only exists in front of the muzzle within its Mach angle" This is a mischaracterization of the geometry. The Mach cone exists along the bullet's entire flight path, not just "in front of the muzzle." The projectile slows down due to air friction causing the Mach number to decrease and the shock wave cone to widen as the bullet travels downrange. montana.edu/rmaher/publica… The cone's geometry changes continuously along the trajectory. And critically, when the rifle's muzzle is pointed away from the microphones, the projectile's expanding shock wave cone may not intercept the microphones at all — but the directionality of the muzzle blast is also evident, with reduced amplitude rather than complete absence montana.edu/rmaher/publica… Subsonic projectiles produce no shockwave at all - yet are localizable A subsonic rifle or handgun produces only the muzzle blast signal - the subsonic bullet does not produce significant sound as it propagates through the air. No supersonic bullet = no Mach cone = no N-wave. Yet subsonic firearms are routinely localized using TDOA multilateration of the muzzle blast alone. If "the only thing that matters" were the N-wave, subsonic weapons would be acoustically invisible -- and they clearly aren't. The bottom line is is that you confuse the shockwave (which traces bullet trajectory) with the muzzle blast. (Which marks the muzzle blast). You are incorrectly asserting that the N-wave is what matters for localization. Maher's entire body of work demonstrates that the muzzle blast is the primary signal for shooter localization via TDOA, that the shockwave alone can only determine trajectory, and the two signals serve complementary but distinct forensic roles. The N-wave itself will never give you anything but trajectory and that is a variable dependent on microphone position. I have not measured from the shockwave to find shooter position which is the correct way to go about this work. If you object, I suggest you go do more research and find where you misinterpret Maher's work. The other point I need to make is you assume a 800 m/s velocity which is an unknown. Unless you somehow obtained the ballistic coefficients you are solving a problem using guess work.

Its inevitable that when I join a space, people want to hear about my analysis. At the same time there is such a serious disinformation campaign against anything besides pure speculation that it makes people wonder. Its honestly fucking hilarious the amount of discrediting that happening before any genuine questions about the ACTUAL data occur. Why not ask about how I handled the original video? Why not ask how I got synchronization? Why not ask about how I got the picks? Why not ask how ML/neural network & deep learning have consistently picked 9mm rather than something else? How after asking Grok what the "Gold Standard" is in finding the muzzle position according to forensic standards is there question? I am just thoroughly confused how the people in this "truth seekers" community arent more interested. The only interest is in discrediting what they don't subscribe to, whether it is based in evidence or not.

I never said you assumed a metric in your analysis. I was asking, since you got that shooter location, were you thinking a velocity of around 800 m/s or lower. Because in your post you said, "A supersonic ammunition was used that is consistent with a smaller caliber. Likely a handgun, take that for what you will" which fundamentally contradicts what is required in order to see a "crack" at the outer mics. it HAS to be above 800 m/s. Which is extremely rare for pistols and is the opposite, it needs a high caliber. Not once have I ever said I am using a crack/bang analysis. The muzzle blast is the most unpredictable and unreliable form of measurement in our scenario. I am using crack-to-crack timing between 5 microphones, this is pure geometric optimization through: - Mic GPS positions (measured) - Mach cone geometry (established/optimized) - Relative timing Δt crack between 5 microphones (measured) - RMS error minimization (error checking) I don't assume a single thing in my calculation. Everything is cross checked and confirmed by geometric optimization and error minimization. If velocity/bearing is off, that error is reflected in the geometry, which means it does not fit the measured data points that are known constants.

I assume nothing. That’s the difference between mine and your analysis. I don’t introduce any unknown variables because I don’t measure using the crack at all. That is the issue with using crack bang. In order for it to work you must assume ballistic coefficients, trajectory, your crack and muzzle blast picks are correct and not reflections, there is no error checking and you still only get to draw circles on a map and the shooter could be anywhere along that circle or wherever your circles converge assuming you are using more than one microphone. This is why your method does not meet the standard of Daubert Frye for court admissibility.

Because things change? This is one of the problems I see with your analysis. What we agree on - All 4 of the microphones (IMG_9820, IMG_2201, IMG_6368, Mic 7) recorded a distinct 'crack' supersonic shockwave. Physics constraint - Supersonic bullets create Mach cones, angles (μ) depend on velocity. Along with that, also creates a "No Shockwave Zone". which extends from the trajectory line at an angle of (90°- ~μ). -See pictures Math requirement - For each mic to receive a shockwave/N-wave, it MUST be within this cone. - Outer Mics IMG_9820 and 7 are the furthest from the trajectory line - For them to be inside the Mach cone from your proposed shooter position, we can essentially calculate the minimum required velocity. Using the images attached, we can see that if the bullet velocity were anything lower than ~800 m/s: - Mach cone is wider (Larger μ angle = tighter shockwave zone) - Outer Mics IMG_9820 and 7 would be inside the No Shockwave zone - They would record only the muzzle blast (one audio event, not two) - What we see is two distinct events (crack + boom) Even at 800+ m/s from your shooter position, the predicted crack to crack timing does not match what we see in the audio. Were you assuming a 800+ m/s velocity? Or something lower?

I guess I was just confused why since you and I had this conversation before, in the discord. No I haven’t strictly used just any one measurement . At this point I’m rather certain I have looked at the measurements of almost anything that could come into play. I separated and measured the “crack” onset and “boom” onset. They provide different source locations which is expected due to the Mach cone and it lines up perfectly with what would be the alleged trajectory.

@troofevades Your original post asked for discussion, I simply asked how you got your onset times. Are you strictly using just the muzzle blast? Separating crack and boom? Utilizing the crack in any calculations? This isn’t critique, this is me trying to understand your method.

@Freedom_ForgeUS You still trying to pick random points in the waveform to measure from or what are you up to? I see you had a post amplified by exploding mic boy. If you were doing real acoustic analysis you would have told him there is not an explosion to be found in the audio whatsoever.

@troofevades Oh nice, I’m assuming you have just built on the analysis you had sent me a while back yeah? I’ll be posting something here soon with my full analysis, just tidying it up to make it more readable. All good we disagree, everything should be challenged, including mine.

@Freedom_ForgeUS Nothing has *drastically* changed but I do believe that since I I got some reference recordings in a similar geometric positioning it further concreted my previous hypothesis. What ya got for me? I know you disagree. I am willing to fight anyone on this.

This was at the very beginning of my research and have learned quite a bit since then and adopted a much different approach now. Mind if I get your feed back on the current work I’ve put together? Can’t hurt to get a second pair of eyes on it to see if this tracks properly. I’m tidying up a few things but I can send it your way when I’m finished. Appreciate the feedback nonetheless!

@EcologicalCrime @jonaaronbray @Freedom_ForgeUS In any case, the calculation is generally legitimate. One simply needs to be clear about the expected accuracy of the result. And importantly: D applies to the CPA for the respective microphone.

🤔

I’ll be posting an update on that here soon, finishing up a document that can easily be shared in a PDF. Using new math and honestly has come along way since those calculations. A lot has changed, with much better results that removes pretty much any forced bias anyone can possibly put into it.

@EcologicalCrime @Freedom_ForgeUS did some excellent calculations from the audio and came up with completely different results.

Every video we have is 30-60fps. That is nowhere near enough to capture when the bullet actually impacted. What we are seeing is the aftermath of impact and it just so happens it aligns with the sound. 30 fps - Each frame spans ~33.3 milliseconds (ms). 60 fps - Each frame spans ~16.7ms Entire impact and peak cavitation expansion happens in under 1ms. Collapse phase happens around 5ms-10ms, then settling happens for 10’s to 100’s of ms after. We are seeing the aftermath.

@Freedom_ForgeUS @jonaaronbray @EcologicalCrime @TheDrCon @ClydeMax369 @troofevades @KeliRabon @projectalleytop @alleytopfiles @Piper_truth1 @jordanhenshawhq @XSnailMail @whokilledck @LmBubba @Audio__Freq @FBIDirectorKash I mean the hit at the same time as the sound, he should’ve moved before the sound- instead they align

I’m sorry but you just explained perfectly how high velocity bullets work. The bullet outpaces the sound. The crack is being emitted from behind the bullet. Supersonic rounds are highly directional. Everyone is going to hear the “crack” at different times depending on their position to the bullets Mach cone and trajectory.

Here’s my 2p worth! There’s a lot of different opinions and tests going on but the one thing that everyone is overlooking - Charlie was hit before any sound, ‘explosion’ or gun shot sound which was played through the speakers (using directional control) So an explosion couldn’t have done it A gun couldn’t have done it. I’ve posted evidence including the satellites that were utilised on the day to locate the missing MAV that went off line, the human interface system used. I’ve shown that FT is watching the whole thing on his phone — Next step for me is to find out the players in the crowd.

This is the most misleading article. You are completely omitting two major factors from this: 1. Bullet cavitation 2. IMMEDIATE decorticate posturing Cavitation is not a diffuse injury like explosion overpressure shockwaves. Cavitations cause shearing, tearing and stretching. This can easily create IMMEDIATE decorticate posturing. Explosion shockwaves are diffuse injuries. They can NEVER be the sole cause of immediate decorticate posturing. Explosive overpressure waves are the catalyst that create secondary injuries (bleeding/swelling/ICP) that then produce decorticate posturing later. Explosions typically only cause decerebrate posturing or limpness/flaccidity immediately. Overpressure waves travel uniformly across the body, you cannot selectively damage structures above the red nucleus while sparing the lower brainstem to produce classic immediate decorticate posturing Considering the bullet had a very high chance of fragmenting, each fragment creates its own mini cavitation making immediate posturing even more plausible.

I love the scrutiny you've been giving me, keeps me on my toes lol. Correct, 10-20% is in the jet, but I should have stated this more clearly here and I apologize: - Jet KE: ~10-20% of total explosive energy - Metal/liner acceleration (axial KE including jet + slug): 50-70%+ - Losses (heat, viscosity, radial/tangential): 20-40% or more, with radial blast as part of this. Shaped charges prioritize axial output far more than isotropic blasts. The 80% energy was axial/directional energy into the total formation of the jet, where as the radial overpressure produced from a shape charge that size is very very small. ~15-30%. Correct, the blast wave is strong, BUT only right next to the body. So if it happened at his clavicle, we would see that right clavicle/shoulder get punched backwards (body twisting), or on a sternum blast the chest/torso would go backwards slightly. But even at the source, this would be a relatively slow, natural decaying movement (torso recoil over tens of milliseconds), NOT a violent snap backward in a single video frame. Use the UN Saferguard source to calculate the approximate overpressure blast numbers. This is an isotropic calculator, not shape charge, so you'll have to knock the numbers down by like 10-30%. (Picture below) Key data points (20cm distance Clavicle): Incident Pressure - 692 kPa (Adjusted: ~485-623 kPa) - How high the pressure spike gets at that distance Incident Impulse - 27.33 kPa (Adjusted: ~19-25 kPa) - How much total force is applied over time (Going 10cm more, essentially cuts those numbers in half just to show how quickly it decays.) Impulse is the important one here, that 27.33 kPa is relatively low. Nowhere near the amount of force needed to cause the snapback we see in Charlie. For examples, using the NIH source, soldiers near artillery rounds received much higher impulse. The m777 produced between 20-30 kPa and we see nothing. (Chart below has all the data) The only movement we would see on Charlie is from the local source overpressure wherever it was placed. A quick LOCAL (clavicle/sternum) flinch followed by slow natural recoil, not a rapid mechanical snap backward in the head/neck. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10… unsaferguard.org/un-saferguard/…

@Freedom_ForgeUS not ~80% into the jet, more like 10-20%...that said, the rest is mostly not into the blast/shock waave. But, thing is, if the shaped charge is right next to the body, the blast wave is super strong still...even with 2 g of expl, so it totally would do a lot of "displacement."

1/3 First off, I would like to wish a speedy and healthy recovery of Congresswoman Gladis Aurora López. The explosive used gives us so much validation when it comes to analyzing what happened to Charlie and how an explosion was NOT used on him. I also would like to apologize for showing Congresswoman López in such a vulnerable state, I would blur out her face, but sadly we need to see how the energy was being displaced throughout her head/body.

@EricLDaugh Maybe the doctor will have the new autistic Barbie for her to play with.

🚨 LMFAO! Federal agents are now carrying leftist ICE insurrectionists by ALL FOURS in Minneapolis "I am autistic! I have a brain injury!" she yells "I just want to get to the doctor!" You literally CANNOT make this up. KEEP ARRESTING! FAFO!

Who are these most trusted researchers? Tag them. They won’t be able to answer any of these issues either. Never said he was “blown back”, I said there was a violent snap backwards of his head/neck. That snap happens in 1 frame. If you read anything I posted, you’d know that is impossible from a shape charge. The jet pushes forward along its path, not snap the head/neck back independently. Blanks do not create a N wave. Only a supersonic event creates a N wave and it would have had to of been shot in Charlie’s direction for us to see those N waves. Just strive to do a tiny bit of research. If you read anything I posted, a micro-shape charge explains nothing that day. Especially the neck wound. If it created the neck wound. It. Would. Break. Shirt. Concealment. Or create a separate entry wound. Tell me what it explained, I’d love to know all the things you thought it explained.

Evidently 70% of people - and the most trusted researchers - disagree with you He doesn’t get blown back. He falls back. The fun report was real. Could have been a blank. The micro shape charge explains a LOT that day. Including the neck wound and why they had to stick to the narrative of that (planted) gun. But you keep singing your song, even if nobody agrees with you.

Everything wrong with the shape charge/explosion theory and how it fails every metric we see. 0/4 1. A singular audio event happened, one supersonic gunshot was fired that day, there is no escaping that. 2. Prolonged decorticate posturing happened | 5+ second duration before he was pulled down. Impossible with current explosion theory. 3. Trajectory - Not possible with the wound we see, breaks shirt concealment (char), jet visible. 4. Biomechanical Recoil and Energy Displacement - Body movement and energy displacement is nowhere close to an explosion. There is not a single piece of evidence that fits with an explosion narrative. How far are we going to move the goal post on this? Again this is me arguing only the method that killed Charlie, not the narrative. The whole thing is sketchy as hell with a ton more people involved, but as of right now, the only thing that fits his death is a high velocity bullet.

I didn't assume the shooter location, it was determined by following Robert C. Maher's research. I started with his geometric model for calculating timing differences between shockwaves on multiple microphones, which lets you solve for unknown variables like shooter position and bullet velocity. I then built a derivative off that work for even more accurate results. I never 'started' with the USBI narrative, I worked forward from the acoustics data and ended up confirming part of their shooter distance. Anything else you'd like to call out? Thanks for the link, I missed it earlier, my apologies. I'll take a look at it and get back to you. Maher, R. (2006). 'Modeling and signal processing of acoustic gunshot recordings.' Proceedings of the Digital Forensic Research Workshop (DFRWS). Full paper: montana.edu/rmaher/publica…

@Freedom_ForgeUS @Trillion0x @uvureview I read through 375 tweets. The reason I said fedslop is bc it’s 7 characters, but more, you assume premise of USBI narrative, which is shooter location. So not evidence based, you are backwards designing a deductive proof based on premise and edited vids. I posted link to theory

Baron Coleman dares show up in an X Space and it’s even worse than we thought. Why are Baron Blake and Bray pushing such an explosive CK conspiracy? Blowing up the Triple B Boys 💥😵‍💫📟 twitter.com/i/spaces/1OdKr…