Firstly, the burden of proof says it's their job to demonstrate that Kirk was wearing a bulletproof vest in the first place (let alone that the bullet struck him in it first), not yours to debunk it. We've really lost sight of how important this is in recent years.

• There's zero evidence Kirk was wearing body armor whatsoever.
• I don't think we've ever seen evidence of Kirk wearing body armor to debates elsewhere.
• A bullet would've left at minimum a noticeable tear in Kirk's clothing.
• Neither journalists nor investigators mention anything about this even though there's zero compelling reason for them not to and, for journalists, incentives to do so.
• The round was 7.62x63 mm fired from a bolt-action rifle.
• If that round strikes body armor, in order for it to stop (let alone ricochet rather than embed), the armor needs to be so thick that you cannot hide it under civilian clothing like Kirk's. The armor would've been readily visible to everybody in attendance. Light armor Kirk realistically could've been wearing would be a non-factor.
• Even if this magically happened, the improbably fucked-up physics required for a bullet to bounce from the torso into the cartoid artery seem vanishingly unlikely at best and implausible at worst.

While much of this just shows extreme unlikelihood, the thickness of the alleged body armor is impossible to reconcile with the round and the weapon it was fired from.

True, but they’re not trying to claim otherwise. It’s an honest statement of ignorance, and practically a question. Because it was brought up, anyone reading this who hadn’t heard the truth now has.

https://preview.redd.it/cgi94x9tr2i51.jpg?auto=webp&s=65a22885afd727dabcbe64cf2ec215778d0d6fa0

yeah its fun huh