Natalie

[Forbidden HQ 🐇 @WearForbidden]

The Andrew Wilson Cinematic Universe has officially left Earth.

Forbidden Studios presents: INTERWILSON

[Natalie @panagovi]

😂 Blake posts like he’s dropping a legal bombshell and five minutes later Baron is standing over the wreckage with a broom like, “Sir… this is literally how preliminary hearings work.” 😭🤣 Blake needs to start putting “fact checking by Baron Coleman” in the credits of every post. 😂

[Natalie @panagovi]

I’m honestly so sad to see how toxic X has become. I should be able to share my thoughts and opinions without people calling me names, saving my pictures, editing them with cruel and degrading words, and reposting them to mock me.
We can disagree. We can debate. We can believe completely different things. But when did disagreement become an excuse to dehumanize someone?
And what makes it even more disappointing is seeing some of this behavior come from people who proudly call themselves Christians. You don’t have to agree with me, but if we claim to follow Christ, shouldn’t the way we treat people reflect Him too?
Seriously… what happened to basic kindness and respect?

[Natalie @panagovi]

EXACTLY. Candace didn’t need to prove every theory surrounding this case to win the debate. Andrew’s job was to convince people the official case against Tyler was as airtight as he claimed. Instead, people walked away with MORE questions than they had going in.
If your goal was “case closed” and the audience leaves saying “wait… something is seriously off here,” congratulations—you may have accidentally helped Candace make her point. 😭😂

[Forbidden HQ 🐇 @WearForbidden]

The Andrew Wilson cinematic universe has officially entered its anime era.

Meet Picklepuff.

[Natalie @panagovi]

@HelboJohnny @ZachCostello_ What exactly do you believe her motives are? And can you point me to the evidence that led you to that conclusion? I’m genuinely asking....I would like to look at it myself rather than just take anyone’s word for it.

[Natalie @panagovi]

I'm not saying you're wrong for believing Oswald acted alone. If that's where the evidence leads you, that's completely fine. My point is simply that I haven't seen enough to personally feel certain about that conclusion and I think there are legitimate unanswered questions worth discussing. That doesn't mean I automatically believe every theory Candace or anyone else puts forward.
And respectfully, this is getting exhausting. On basically every reply I make, you come back trying to convince me that your conclusion is the correct one. I haven't tried to convince you that Oswald didn't act alone, questioned why you believe what you believe, or demanded that you defend your opinion to me. You're entitled to look at the evidence and reach your conclusion and I'm entitled to do exactly the same. We clearly interpret the evidence differently and that's okay. Neither one of us needs to convert the other. So I'm going to leave it here because this is my last reply on it. We can agree to disagree. 🤝

[Natalie @panagovi]

I was wondering the SAME thing!!!
At this point Candace could sneeze and somebody would post a 47-tweet investigation titled “THE SNEEZE THEY DON���T WANT YOU TO QUESTION.” Some of these people aren’t just jumping to conclusions—they’re auditioning for the Olympic team in mental gymnastics. And honestly, some of these stretches deserve a gold medal. 🥇😂

[Natalie @panagovi]

Ben, no... the “gotcha” isn’t that Andrew didn’t memorize every charge. The point is that he was speaking with absolute confidence about a case while getting basic details wrong and dismissing questions about evidence he clearly hadn’t examined closely. Nobody expects him to memorize a court filing. But if you’re going to ridicule people for questioning a case, maybe know the case you’re ridiculing them over. 🤷‍♀️

[Natalie @panagovi]

Barry, calling people a “cult” is a lot easier than actually addressing what I said. 😂 I didn’t say Candace is my “only credible source”...I specifically referenced five days of testimony and asked people to check the evidence for themselves. That’s literally the opposite of blindly following someone.
If Candace has been “caught in lies all the time,” then forget the insults and show me the specific lie, the evidence proving it, and the source. I’m perfectly capable of changing my mind when the facts support it. Are you? 😉

[Natalie @panagovi]

Yes, I do believe her. More importantly, I believe in Candace’s integrity in this investigation. She and Charlie had a genuine friendship, and I trust that she’s sincerely searching for the truth. That doesn’t mean every theory she explores has been proven.
And since you brought up Oswald, saying “Oswald acted alone” like it’s an undisputed fact is a little ironic. There is not definitive proof that he didn’t act alone, but there are legitimate reasons the JFK case has remained disputed for decades—including the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluding in 1979 that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. That conclusion has itself been challenged, but it proves the lone-gunman question is hardly as settled as your comment makes it sound.
Questioning an investigation isn’t the same as pretending you already know every answer.

[Natalie @panagovi]

You keep listing the prosecution’s allegations like repeating them makes every disputed detail settled fact. There were five other DNA contributors, Lance Twig being one of them, and his DNA was reportedly better quality than Tyler’s, while Tyler’s was more degraded. Did you actually watch all five days of testimony? Do you check this stuff for yourself, or just repeat what you hear from podcasts and X accounts that clearly have their own biases? The testimony itself is exactly why people still have questions. If the case is truly airtight, scrutiny shouldn’t be a problem.

[Natalie @panagovi]

@VolgareT @ZachCostello_ At this point, we’re just going in circles. Questioning things and investigating them is not the same as claiming they’re proven facts. We clearly see this completely differently, and girl/boy, I can’t deal with you no more. 😂

[Natalie @panagovi]

Calling Candace “wicked” while complaining that she’s the bully is quite the plot twist. 😂 Disagree with her all you want, but asking uncomfortable questions, investigating inconsistencies, and refusing to shut up because people are offended isn’t bullying. Trying to shame someone into silence while calling them names, though? You might want to reread your own post, Michele. The irony is doing backflips. 🤸‍♀️😂

[Natalie @panagovi]

“Open-and-shut” cases generally don’t leave this many people arguing over unanswered questions. 😂 And Candace acknowledging that she doesn’t have positive evidence proving her theories isn’t the gotcha you think it is ,it’s actually an admission of what is and isn’t proven.
She’s questioning whether the evidence supports the official narrative and investigating alternatives. You can disagree with her conclusions, absolutely. But “she hasn’t proven her theory” does not automatically equal “therefore the official theory has been proven beyond question.” Those are two completely different claims.
If it’s truly that open-and-shut, then answering the questions should be the easy part. 🤷‍♀️

[Natalie @panagovi]

No. I’m saying I’m not claiming to know exactly who conspired with whom because I don’t have evidence proving that. I do find some of Erika Kirk’s behavior suspicious, and I think there are serious inconsistencies and disputed statements that deserve answers.
And no, I personally don’t believe Tyler Robinson was the shooter. Could he have had something to do with it? Maybe...I don’t know. I believe there may have been multiple people involved in Charlie’s murder, but I don’t pretend to know who they were without proof.
It’s like JFK: you can question whether the official explanation tells the whole story without magically knowing every person who may have been involved. 😂 Asking questions and investigating evidence is not the same as claiming you’ve already solved the entire case.

[Natalie @panagovi]

That’s not how debates work. I don’t have to adopt every single theory Candace has ever questioned or investigated in order to think she won a debate. I can think she made the stronger arguments, exposed holes in the opposing narrative, and raised questions that still deserve answers without signing a sworn affidavit that Erika, TPUSA, France, and Israel were all plotting together in a secret conference room. 😂
Being convinced someone won a debate ≠ believing every possible conclusion surrounding the entire case. That’s quite the Olympic-level leap in logic.

[Natalie @panagovi]

Ah yes, nothing says “I have a strong argument” quite like “brain-rotted, grifting, parasocial echo chamber” before addressing exactly zero of the questions being asked. 😭😂

And respecting a grieving widow doesn’t require treating her version of events as unquestionable. Two things can be true at once: she deserves compassion, and people are still allowed to ask questions. Calling everyone who does a conspiracy theorist isn’t a rebuttal—it’s just an insult wearing a thesaurus. 💀

[Natalie @panagovi]

That’s the part you’re missing. Candace has never said she knows for certain that all of these people or governments were involved. She’s investigating, following connections, pointing out contradictions and asking questions. There’s a HUGE difference between saying “this person did it” and saying “this doesn’t add up—why, and where does this lead?” 😂

You can disagree with her theories or conclusions all day long, but calling the entire investigation “baseless” because she hasn’t already solved the case she’s actively investigating is a little like yelling, “Why are you looking for answers if you don’t already have the answers?!” 😭😂

[Natalie @panagovi]

@CandaceGuardian MAYA 😭😭😭 One debate with Candace and Andrew activated his PTO, FMLA, vacation days AND a spiritual sabbatical. 😂😂 Sir said, “I’ll debate anybody!” Candace: “Okay.” Andrew: “Actually, the office will be closed for the next few weeks.”