Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal

The alleged shooting death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, during a live event in Utah has sparked massive online debate and become a flashpoint for deeper discussions about media reality and narrative control. At the heart of this divide are two contrasting approaches.

On one side, independent researchers like Gemma O’Doherty, Miles Mathis, and Cyntha Koeter treat the event as highly suspicious from the outset. They argue that the evidence points to a complete fake—a staged “hoax” or “psyop” designed to manipulate emotions, divide conservatives politically, boost Turning Point USA’s profile, or allow Kirk to disappear into intelligence work or a witness protection program (with some hoax theorists interpreting FBI Director Kash Patel’s public tribute—“Rest now, brother. We have the watch, and I’ll see you in Valhalla”—as a cryptic signal that Kirk is alive and relocated under protection, despite “Valhalla” having no official connection to WITSEC and primarily being a military/Norse mythology reference).

Their focus remains on dismantling the basics: Was there even a real death? They highlight holes in official records, video glitches, family connections, and pre-event clues suggesting fabrication.

On the other side stands Candace Owens, a high-profile conservative with a massive X following. Owens accepts the assassination as fact and leaps directly to identifying culprits and motives. Her theories shift repeatedly, keeping her audience engaged in dramatic speculation while diverting attention from questions about the event’s authenticity. Owens’ posts garner millions of views, while hoax analyses linger in low-engagement corners.

To be clear: This analysis does not endorse the hoax theories. It examines how Owens’ platform and evolving narratives drown out the fundamental question: Did this actually happen?

Let’s break it down category by category.

Official Documentation: Missing Proof of Death vs. Hunting for Culprits

Genuine investigators demand basic evidence of death. O’Doherty (2025) notes absences like no public coroner’s report, autopsy, ballistics details, official death certificate, church funeral site, or named hospital doctor—plus an “impossible” lack of exit wound from a 30-06 bullet. Mathis (2025) points to rapid crime scene scrubbing (stages disassembled, pavement replaced) as deliberate erasure. Koeter (2025) questions Trump’s quick announcement bypassing normal channels and Netanyahu’s simultaneous condolences.

To them, these gaps indicate a scripted non-event.

Owens assumes the death is real and treats gaps as cover-ups. Throughout late 2025, her accusations evolved rapidly: initially pushing back against claims she directly blamed Israel (Owens, 9/17/2025), then declaring France’s involvement (Owens, 12/15/2025), soon turning to internal betrayal by Turning Point USA leadership (Owens, 12/16/2025), accusing Ben Shapiro of lying (Owens, 11/28/2025), and raising questions about Erika Kirk’s Fort Huachuca alibi (Owens, 12/22/2025).

This villain chase reinforces the “real death” frame without addressing foundational absences.

Key Differences Between Hoax Researchers and Owens

The Skeptic’s Lens: Is This Reality?

• The Hoax Investigators operate from a fundamental premise of disbelief. Their core question is existential: “Did this event actually happen at all?” To them, the world is a stage, and any major news event is a potential mirage constructed through technical deception.
• When they watch a video, they aren’t looking at the people; they are looking at the pixels. They hunt for things like practical effects, identifying “squibs” (small explosive pouches used to mimic bullet hits) or theatrical blood. Their ultimate objective is to dismantle the event entirely, proving it never took place and exposing it as a total fabrication.

The Narrator’s Lens

In contrast, Candace Owens rarely questions if the event occurred; instead, her central mystery is: “Who is behind this, and why?”

• Rather than looking for AI, she looks for authentic background clues—small details like the specific color of a shirt (e.g., the maroon shirts) or the body language of the participants.
• She focuses on “Ties,” looking for family links, “deep state” insiders, or personal betrayals that suggest the event was allowed or staged by people close to the situation.
• Her objective isn’t to make the event disappear, but to evolve the story. She builds a complex, ongoing saga that keeps the audience engaged with a rolling narrative of corruption and hidden agendas.

Hoax Investigators vs. Owens: A Detailed Cross-Check

Video and Physical Anomalies: Signs of Faking vs. Side Details

Hoax researchers see footage flaws as proof of fabrication. Koeter (2025) spots a moving shirt spot (possible blood device) and pre-shot hand signals. Mathis (2025) identifies exploding shirt from a chest device, CGI residue, and ring switches—plus dismisses “debunking” glitches as intentional distractions. O’Doherty (2025) highlights non-moving wound (suggesting AI overlay or squib) and no massive damage from a powerful bullet.

Owens views videos as authentic but obsesses over peripheral “clues,” noting maroon shirts worn by attendees and linking the color to elite airborne operations (Owens, 12/10/2025), insisting Egyptian planes hold the key (Owens, 12/10/2025), and suggesting Calvary Chapel pastors seem involved (Owens, 12/5/2025).

These viral distractions presume genuine footage, steering away from core anomalies.

Genealogical and Intelligence Ties: Insider Connections vs. Outside Enemies

Hoax theorists probe Kirk’s background for staging enablers. Mathis (2025) traces intelligence links via Erika’s family (DoD/DHS, Raytheon Israel). O’Doherty (2025) questions multiple “Erika” actresses, missing child records, and fake family videos—suggesting a setup for fake death (potentially into protection, tying into “Valhalla” speculation).

Owens ignores these, focusing on external drama: sharing content about Kash Patel on France’s potential involvement (Owens, 12/18/2025), claiming insiders confirmed Egyptians at a Utah motel (Owens, 12/12/2025), and hinting at Patel keeping a secret about a “New Jersey-sized” country (Owens, 11/26/2025).

Her massive reach amplifies personal betrayals over structural insider possibilities.

Pre-Event and Symbolic Clues: Hints of Planning vs. Signals of Plots

Researchers view symbols as scripting evidence. Koeter (2025) cites pre-event Amazon book and Erika’s Psalm post tying to Q “movie” themes. O’Doherty (2025) flags Masonic “33 hours” manhunt and prior South Park episode. Mathis (2025) notes 9/10 date echoing 9/11.

Owens builds suspense with symbols assuming real death, commenting on broader fallout with remarks about Christian Zionism “crashing out” (Owens, 12/1/2025).

Her flip-flops keep buzz alive in accepted-reality circles.

Why Would Candace Owens Sustain This Shifting Narrative Trap?

The core puzzle remains: Why does Owens—with her influence, resources, and access—repeatedly introduce new “revelations” and suspects (from subtle Israel hints to France, Egyptian planes and motels, internal TPUSA betrayal, Calvary Chapel, Shapiro’s lies, alibis, and cryptic country secrets) without ever once addressing the elephant in the room: the complete absence of basic proof that Kirk died, or the glaring video and record anomalies highlighted by hoax researchers?

Whatever her intent, the effect is consistent: Her ever-evolving story dominates conservative discourse, racks up millions of views, and keeps the audience trapped in an endless “whodunit” that presupposes the assassination’s reality. This marginalizes the simpler, more foundational question—“Did it even happen?”—pushing it to the fringes.

Possible explanations (all speculative):

• Controlled opposition or deliberate distraction: Her pivots divide and exhaust conservatives, preventing unified scrutiny of potential staging.
• Engagement and monetization: Constant “bombshells” maximize platform growth and revenue without needing resolution.
• Narrative gatekeeping: By owning the mainstream conservative conversation on the topic, she indirectly delegitimizes hoax inquiries as fringe or irresponsible.
• Ideological branding: The shifting targets align with her evolving public persona, using the mystery as a vehicle for broader commentary.

O’Doherty (2025) explicitly labels Owens an “asset” deploying “cringe” distractions. The outcome, intended or not, is a public debate that chases shadows while avoiding the light on the event’s authenticity.

In the end, hoax investigators demand proof of the event itself. Owens builds an endless “who/why” mystery. The contrast creates division without answers.

For anyone digging deeper: Skip the villain debates for now. Start with the footage, the records, and the basics.

References

1. Koeter, Cyntha. 2025. “The Lies and Deceit around Charlie Kirk’s Death.” Fall of the Cabal Official, September 18. https://substack.com/home/post/p-173920083.
2. Mathis, Miles. 2025. “The Murder of Charlie Kirk Was of Course STAGED.” Miles W. Mathis, September 11. https://mileswmathis.com/kirk.pdf.
3. O’Doherty, Gemma. 2025. “Charlie Kirk Hoax Explained in Six Minutes.” Gemma O’Doherty’s Substack, November 12. https://substack.com/home/post/p-178679380.
4. Owens, 9/17/2025: “It’s crazy how I never once said that Israel murdered Charlie Kirk but the Zionists are all repeating that without a shred of evidence.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1968440311555793125
5. Owens, 11/26/2025: “MAJOR NEWS: Kash Patel has been keeping a secret about that country that’s “only the size of New Jersey” and Charlie Kirk’s assassination.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1985816250518282642
6. Owens, 11/28/2025: “Ben Shapiro took the stage last night with @megynkelly and lied through his teeth.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1986845598381978046
7. Owens, 12/1/2025: “Christian Zionism is crashing out. What is it about the Charlie Kirk investigation that has them all so shook?” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1987998237471764499
8. Owens, 12/5/2025: “From Britney Spears, to Bieber, to Charlie Kirk— the Calvary Chapel Pastors seem to be involved.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1989465719411806484
9. Owens, 12/10/2025 (maroon shirts): “Already receiving a ton of e-mails about my throwaway comment on today’s episode regarding noticing a lot of male attendees at the Charlie Kirk assassination were wearing maroon shirts despite it not signifying UVU school colors. I had NO IDEA that the color was associated with elite airborne operations.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1992034775477969331
10. Owens, 12/10/2025 (Egyptian planes): “The Egyptian planes hold the key to the Charlie Kirk assassination.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1991989177723072877
11. Owens, 12/12/2025: “Someone DIRECTLY involved in the booking process has confirmed to me that our “Egyptians” who flew into Provo ahead of Charlie Kirk’s assassination were staying at the La Quinta Inn & Suites in Orem, Utah.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1993720896511480302
12. Owens, 12/15/2025: “I announced that France was involved in Charlie Kirk’s assassination.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1995607296039375256
13. Owens, 12/16/2025: “I now can say with full confidence that I believe Charlie Kirk was betrayed by the leadership of Turning Point USA and some of the very people who eulogized him on stage.” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1995848631304220684
14. Owens, 12/18/2025: Post featuring Kash Patel being asked about France’s potential involvement. https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1998154942150828250
15. Owens, 12/22/2025: “Erika Kirk’s Fort Huachuca alibi?” https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/2004740372916797902

Written with the help of Grok and Gemini AI.