Why the Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theories Will Never Die ⁠62%

By Michael Shermer⁠0%

7/10/2026, 2:18:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Quote-first Misdirection, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.2% saturation with 176 hits. Analysis detected 768 faulty-reasoning hits from 319 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (8,518 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

Michael Shermer on why the conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination refuse to die, even as the evidence against the accused killer mounts. 
(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images) 
The stronger the evidence becomes, the more elaborate the theories grow. 
The reason lies in a psychological tendency to seek causes proportionate to consequential events. 
07.10.26 — U.S. 
Politics 
Produced by ElevenLabs using AI narration 
This week, the preliminary hearing finally began in the case that sent shock waves around the world: the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025. 
The proceedings, which began Monday in Utah and are expected to conclude on Friday, have surfaced overwhelming evidence against accused killer Tyler Robinson. 
For example: He confessed the crime by text to his transgender roommate Lance Twiggs (“you werent the one who did it right???” 
“I am, I’m sorry.”); his own parents recognized him from released images, and said that the rifle he used matched that of his grandfather; Robinson’s DNA was found on the rifle’s trigger, a spent cartridge casing, two unspent cartridges, and the towel used to wrap the rifle; surveillance footage showed Robinson jumping down from the rooftop where the fatal shot appeared to be taken; and bullet cartridges recovered at the scene featured engravings (“Hey fascist! 
Catch!” 
and “OwO what’s this?”) 
made with a tool found in Robinson’s bedroom, alongside a shell casing engraved “test shot.” 
This is not an exhaustive list. 
You might assume, given all this, that the vicious conspiracy theories sparked by Kirk’s assassination, which have infected our society ever since, would have faded. 
Continue Reading The Free Press 
To support our journalism, and unlock all of our investigative stories and provocative commentary about the world as it actually is, subscribe below. 
Billed as $100 yearly 
Billed as $10 monthly 
Already have an account? 
To read this article, sign in or subscribe 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Michael Shermer: 5.3%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 6.3%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Michael Shermer: 4.1%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic16.3%This article: 4.4%Michael Shermer: 1.1%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 1.9%Michael Shermer: 0.5%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias1.9%This article: 11.9%Michael Shermer: 3.0%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias11.9%This article: 11.6%Michael Shermer: 5.4%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 1.3%Michael Shermer: 0.3%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.3%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Michael Shermer: 2.5%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 55.2%Michael Shermer: 16.1%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias55.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Michael Shermer: 2.2%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 2.8%Michael Shermer: 0.7%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.9%Michael Shermer: 1.3%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization1.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.7%Michael Shermer: 6.3%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion9.7%This article: 4.4%Michael Shermer: 1.1%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 3.4%Michael Shermer: 0.9%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.9%Michael Shermer: 3.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof11.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Michael Shermer: 0.5%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.7%Michael Shermer: 7.7%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote30.7%This article: 30.4%Michael Shermer: 9.3%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection30.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 6.7%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.5%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.4%Michael Shermer: 18.7%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…20.4%

319 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers17%attributed speech265writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Shermer • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageElevenLabs • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 75 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageThe Free Press • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Shermer

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words43% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote-37.0 ptsWriter: 37.0%Michael Shermer: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-36.6 ptsWriter: 36.6%Michael Shermer: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.1 ptsWriter: 15.1%Michael Shermer: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.