TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In a video discussion, Stefan Gardner argues that forensic evidence, particularly dust samples, will effectively end conspiracy theories about who fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk. He contends that dust from the rocks on the roof will leave a unique signature that will be found on the killer’s clothes, the gun, and the shoes, making shoe tread and soil samples crucial to the investigation. Gardner also notes that dust and soil will be found on items connected to the killer’s lay-down on the roof and asserts that gun residue on the killer’s hands would be transferred to the steering wheel, making the killer’s car a major part of the evidence. Responding to this, another speaker, James Lee, mocks the idea that dust matching should come before bullet-to-gun matching, calling the discussion about dust a clownish distraction. The conversation emphasizes the broader expectation that trial evidence will concede to the narrative that the killer’s DNA and shoe dust will identify the perpetrator, while acknowledging public skepticism about the FBI’s presentation of evidence and the timing of disclosures. The speakers contrast the claimed forensic signatures with perceived gaps in the FBI’s narrative, arguing that the investigation will eventually reveal the gun, DNA, and other physical proof at trial. They anticipate that the evidence will demonstrate that the shooter’s shoes and vehicle contain trace material consistent with the crime scene and that the gun was used, but they express doubt about official explanations and the timing or availability of certain evidence, including video footage. A central theme is a critique of the FBI and their handling of the case: the speakers challenge the transparency of the investigation, suggesting that video footage and CCTV evidence should be released to restore public trust. They reference the demand for CCTV footage showing key actions: Tyler Robinson on campus, climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and then fleeing. They assert there is video evidence of the shooting and question why it has not been released, noting claims that 3,000 people witnessed the incident live and that there is video evidence of planning and movement around the campus, including entrances and parking structures. The dialogue also touches on inconsistencies alleged in material evidence, such as a 30-06 round discussion, with the group arguing that even the smallest round would not plausibly produce the described wound at the distances claimed. They insist that standard investigative procedures would include sharing footage and autopsy details, and they demand transparency on the autopsy, CCTV, and video evidence from the crime scene. Overall, the speakers insist that the investigation should present complete video footage and corroborating evidence to verify the narrative surrounding Tyler Robinson and the murder of Charlie Kirk, labeling the current presentation as “slop.”

Rob said he 'smelled a rat' and didn’t buy the official narrative of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. He noted an apparent exit wound 'coming out of his neck' and questioned the ballistics: 'the thirty odd six... took a cold bore shot,' 'took it apart, wrapped it up.' He warned that asking questions triggers pushback: 'the moment you ask, you get torn down.' He questioned evidence handling—'lapel mic off,' 'SIM card?' 'camera behind him,' 'contaminate crime scene,' 'paved over?' 'rebuild it?' He pointed to inconsistent claims about body armor and the bullet, saying 'it would blow his head off' and noting contradictions about armor. He criticized the lack of video evidence for Tyler on campus while saying 'we've got him,' and bristled at being labeled 'anti Semitic' for asking questions. He urged for autopsy findings and clear explanations to make sense to non-experts.

"how did this guy know to move to that exact location?" "There was also a man that was arrested in a parking lot with an airsoft rifle." "that crazy guy screaming that he was basically a distraction?" "the best way to tell a difference between people is to look at their ear." "the ear does not is a bit different to the one we've seen of of photos of Tyler, old photos Tyler." "it's not obvious, but we don't have any positive proof here that there is a rifle in this video at all." "how did he get a rifle up on the roof?" "it's not a takedown model." "the bulge in his pocket" "12:23:34" "potato cam footage" "I didn't shoot him, I didn't do anything, I swear guys." "rifle was pre positioned at some period in time, and that he then was able to pick it off the property, and because he knew he couldn't walk all the way across, and then stash it like that as he was moving into position finally." "there's so many different people that are talking about this and it hasn't died yet." "a Twitter post the day before and ended up sharing it, the same day within hours of when Charlie Kirk got shot, that said he was attending school there, he said something very big was gonna happen the next day"

Speaker 0: On behalf of every single American citizen, we're thinking exactly what Morgan Ariel is tweeting. She goes by at its morgan ariel on X, gives her girl a follow. She's off the hook. She says, what in the actual f? Is it very possible that Tyler Robinson was never on the roof the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination? At FBI director Kesh Patel, we want answers and we want them now. So remember the magic TMZ video? What do you notice about this dude spreading across the college campus right here? Right after the assassination. He looks awful familiar to the dude that the TMZ video gave us, didn't they? Let me turn the camera around and show you this a little closer. Okay. So we literally have this man that's right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. He's sprinting across the campus. When you zoom in on that dude, looks really familiar. Hat, same. Let me actually pull that one up a little bit bigger. So we’ve got his hat here the same, maroon shirt, light dark shorts, light shoes. Maroon shirt, dark shirt, light shoes, hats almost identical. Eye freaking identical, isn't it? And, actually, I can make that a little bit better for you guys. Check this out. There you go. Looks really weird, doesn't it? Looks oh, oh my gosh. Identical. Right? Are we just getting lucky, or is that the exact same person? Because it sure as shit looks like the exact same person. I don't know about you guys, but this entire investigation just thinks like shit. The only people who are literally still believing the FBI's narrative is Jack Wasellbick, now Stephen Gardner and Benny Johnson and the rest of the goon squad over at DP USA. Us Americans, anybody that has a brain, anybody that's able to logically think for themselves, looks at all the evidence the FBI has presented and says that's a load of shit. This kid is never gonna make it to a trial. We're never gonna see those videos. They're gonna Epstein his ass. They're gonna rig this trial. Call it what you wanna call it. They're gonna probably come out with some geolocation data and try to convince you that he was on the roof right when they kill him and they slide him out the back door. He ends up over in Israel sipping pina coladas with Epstein. Drop those comments below. Let me know what you think. My name is Ryan Matta. We out. Peace.

Speaker 0 posits a theory that there were state actors or foreign intelligence agencies involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and attributes this belief to Benny Johnson, describing Johnson as “the anarchist” who told him so, and invites viewers to “check this clip out.” Speaker 1 responds by acknowledging that there is reason for people to believe this could be a professional hit job. They reference John Salmond as an excellent reporter and Steven Crowder as having access to leaked information. They state, “there is some considerable evidence that there were state actors involved here,” and emphasize their close connection to Charlie Kirk and his team, asserting that this is what they wish to relay to the audience. Speaker 0 returns to challenge Benny, asking which specific element changed his mind and led him to conclude that Tyler Robinson is now not a lone actor, and that state-level or foreign intelligence agencies were not involved in the assassination. He enumerates several potential clues: a text message from Lance Twiggs, similarities between Tyler Robinson’s photo and the jail mugshot, the speed at which Tyler Robinson was able to sprint, and the “man of steel” autopsy claim that Charlie Kirk stopped a 30-06 with his neck. He then asks which of these factors was decisive in shifting Benny’s belief away from the involvement of state actors, and expresses intent to wait for Benny’s answer.

Speaker 0: "We still have, basically confirmation he got shot. ... immediate incapacitation." He asserts "the FBI is lying" and that "it's quite literally not possible for the shooter to have been on the roof that they claim he is along with other inconsistencies across the board." Speaker 1: "Keep your eye on this space here... the bullet matches the exit wound, ... the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." He adds: "the same what appears to be the bullet coming down and it does line up with the actual gunshot itself." From Google Earth, "the shooter was up here somewhere, that's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "the shooter was most likely here somewhere." "Somewhere on those stairs would be my tip, and if the FBI aren't looking there, I don't know why."

"all these Internet experts are sure that it was a professional hit against Charlie Kirk." "Firstly, professionals are trained to aim for the center of scene mass." "Neither the center of scene mass or the head was hit." "The round landed here from what I saw." "The shooter got lucky." "Secondly, 200 yards is not that big a distance to make." "and there was even an exfil roof." "If you really wanna analyze these sorts of situations, team, stop looking at the shot." "Check out the planning, check out the prep, and even the exfil route." "Time will tell, I guess."

- "Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest." - "I have from a confirmed source." - "Carly Carly Trik arrived. He was hit in the chest, which is what we saw right here." - "The bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck." - "There was no side shooter, guys." - "The main shooter came from the front, and I don't think it was that Tyler dude." - "I think that Tyler dude is a patsy." - "So first, he drives and drops this gun off in the woods." - "Then he drives and parks his car on campus." - "Then he walks back to the woods to get the gun, then he puts the gun in his pants." - "Then he walks to campus, climbs on the roof, changes his outfit, then takes the shot." - "Then he jumps off the roof with a 24 inch barrel secured to his leg." - "I think there is somebody much farther back than that." - "Some people are saying he made ninety minutes." - "Definitely didn't feel a thing." - "This is what we call slop."

Speaker 0 says 'The FBI continues to destroy its reputation as a trustworthy investigative agency' and questions Charlie Kirk's death: 'Was it a 30 odd six round that killed Charlie Kirk or a different kind of bullet? Was it a Mauser rifle that was used?' They ask why the Utah Valley campus crime scene is not secure and link it to the pattern after the Butler rally. Zeb Boykin, a former marine sniper, claims 'I do believe I know where the bullet ended up' after analyzing footage. He notes a ricochet off water bottles or a table, two frames showing 'the bullet on exit,' and that it 'would hit the building.' He cites rapid cleanup, 'a 20 foot ladder on the window,' window repairs, and a tampering video with a man in black directing people as attention shifts upward. ER nurses identify an exit wound; 'the ballistics don't lie.'

Speaker discusses Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest, citing a confirmed source and a message on X: 'Carly Carly Trik arrived.' He says 'he was hit in the chest, which is what we saw' and that 'the bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck.' He asserts 'There was no side shooter' and that 'The main shooter we're looking at came from the front' and 'I don't think it was that Tyler dude' and 'I think that Tyler dude is a patsy' and 'I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof.' He labels counter theories as 'slop' and urges focus on CCTV footages, noting 'the FBI has told us' and suggesting the body was moved, asking 'Is anybody buying this?' He concludes 'I think that there is somebody much farther back than that' and 'the dude on the roof is a patsy.'

The speaker asserts: "starts within five seconds, maybe fifteen seconds tops of Charlie Kirk being assassinated" and "This is the CCTV footage we want." He asks, "why is it that you will not or you are refusing to release this video right here of fifteen seconds prior to Charlie Kirk or prior to what you did release?" He adds, "This dude is sprinting off the roof." He continues, "we went around the campus, and there's another camera." He notes there is "CCTV footage that literally shows the would have shown Tyler shooting at Charlie because the camera is literally right behind Charlie Kirk," and asks why that CCTV footage isn't released. He also asks, "What are on these CCTV cameras? Was there another shooter farther back that you don't wanna show us?" Finally, he asks, "What is this? This literally looks like a camera, a CCTV camera completely removed from the side of the building. Care to comment?"

Colin of Project Constitution sits down with Tyler (the interviewer’s name in the transcript isn’t consistently labeled; the speaker identifying themselves as “Speaker 1”) to discuss an in-depth, ongoing investigation into Charlie Kirk’s assassination and related events. The conversation covers timeline疑s, weapon analysis, hospital logistics, key individuals (notably Erica Kirk, Tyler Boyer, Terrrell Farnsworth, Candace Owens), and alleged foreign and domestic entanglements, with a focus on unfiltered details the team has uncovered. Key points and claims from the discussion: - Initial reaction and approach to Charlie Kirk’s assassination - The team initially accepted the FBI’s narrative but began seeing inconsistencies as reports alternated about suspect custody. Within days after the shooting, the crime scene was reportedly destroyed and the grass replaced with pavers at the university where Kirk spoke. - Video analysis reportedly shows the ground position of the shooter that the FBI cropped out, leading to questions about whether the shooter’s location and the weapon’s origin were accurately represented. - Weapon and ballistics questions - The team raised red flags about the reported firearm: a 30-odd-six was described, but ballistic experts argued that such a round would likely have killed or severely injured the target differently, prompting the theory that the weapon claim did not match the injuries observed. - The investigative team posits the use of an explosion intended to mimic past assassination patterns (e.g., MLK-era examples) and argues the actual kill injuries do not align with a 30-odd-six. - The team’s conclusion, based on crime scene photos, argues the presence of black shards and shards consistent with a microphone (a Rode wireless mic) that shattered on impact; burn marks on Charlie Kirk, and similar black shard traces observed in Candace Owens’ released SUV photos are cited as corroborating evidence. - They propose that an explosion occurred in proximity to the event, with a separate high-powered rifle shot possibly emitted by a drone—suggesting a drone sniper may have fired, not a ground-based shooter, and that the supersonic crack and potential muzzle flash were not from a conventional rifle fire but from a bullet transitioning from supersonic to subsonic speeds, creating a pressure cone. - Hospital choice and post-event handling - Charlie was taken to Tipanogos Hospital rather than a closer facility. Officials reportedly claimed this was to access a higher-grade trauma center, but the timeline questions why the closer hospital wasn’t used and how the decision was made in real time. - A witness (a landscaper at Tipanogos) described the sequence of events: an SUV delivering Charlie Kirk to the hospital, then a second SUV with Mikey McCoy entering through a doctor entrance and leaving, raising questions about who was picked up and where those individuals went afterward. - The FBI reportedly confiscated hospital security camera footage, which the team views as suspicious in a non-crime-scene context. - Candace Owens’ show highlighted an allegation that a surgeon attempted to access the body before Erica Kirk could see it; the surgeon allegedly faced FBI resistance to re-enter the patient area. There is a contested claim about “Superman neck” and whether the surgeon ever stated such language. - Erica Kirk: background, ties, and credibility - Erica is described as potentially military-trained and highly prepared; the team explored her past, tying her to Liberty University’s Falkirk Center and alleged trafficking connections, and to Romanian networks. They assert a pattern of deception—multiple inconsistent stories about how Erica and Charlie met, and extensive past relationships with multiple former partners. - They accuse Erica of deleting past social media and press content, pressuring photographers, and hiding past associations. - The team claims Erica has ties to a broader “Mormon Mafia” network tied to Mitt Romney, with connections to Utah and Arizona. They assert ties to CIA and other security entities, and claim involvement in trafficking and political influence networks. - Tyler Boyer, Terrell Farnsworth, and family/political entanglements - Tyler Boyer is described as deeply connected to the “Mormon Mafia” and as someone who previously ran Turning Point, with shell companies enabling political and charitable activities. The interview alleges he conducted surveillance on Colin and has conflicts of interest in Charlie Kirk’s case. - Terrell Farnsworth and his family connections are described as deeply entrenched in the network; Farnsworth’s stepfather reportedly held a senior position at Duncan Aviation, connected to alleged assassination logistics; Michael Burke (Farnsworth cousin) is identified as a top prosecutor connected to Tyler Robertson’s defense. - The discussion highlights a potential conflict of interest: Farnsworth’s cousin is the defense attorney for Tyler Robertson, creating a potential conflict, given Farnsworth’s role in the case and as a witness who allegedly handled the crime scene (removing SD cards and contaminating evidence). - Investigative aims and future directions - The team seeks a complete timeline that identifies every participant’s role and actions, both to present to the public and to pursue potential legal recourse. - They propose a documentary or comprehensive public analysis to expose alleged lies and inconsistencies and to push for accountability, either through court proceedings or public discourse. - They anticipate possible outcomes for Tyler Robertson’s case (conviction via public opinion, or a plea deal) and suggest the possibility of deeper CIA involvement in the radicalization and online manipulation processes surrounding the case. - They emphasize the risk to investigators and supporters, including concerns about surveillance, shadow banning, and potential threats or actions against prominent figures involved in the investigation. - Closing sentiment - Colin reiterates the importance of citizen journalism and collaboration with Candace Owens, Sam Parker, Baron Coleman, and others in pursuing truth and accountability. The interview ends with a pledge to continue the investigation and to keep the public informed as new information emerges.

Stephen Gardner and Jack Buzovic argue that the smoking gun will be the geolocation data next to the DNA evidence on the rifle. They say, essentially, you steal my car and commit a crime, you’ll likely find my DNA in the vehicle and on the trigger, so now we’re going to trust some expert to provide magical geolocation data. They question how Tyler Robinson could be involved and suggest this should be a single, big government conspiracy if he didn’t actually take the shot. They insist CCTV video would show Tyler Robinson moving through the parking garage, onto the roof, and through various locations, and that the investigation should not avoid showing the video. They ask how a juror would be convinced without video footage when there are twenty different videos, and whether geolocation data could hurt the case when a murder has been committed. They complain about having to trust another expert and mention past high-profile investigations. They demand to see CCTV video showing Tyler Robinson walking across the campus, onto the roof, getting into his car, running through neighborhoods, because all that has been presented is “slop.” Ryan Mehta introduces this segment as a critique of the presented evidence. Speaker 1 (questioning the forensic approach) asks about cell phone tracking and geofencing data, noting that the same method was used in January 6 to determine who was on the steps or on the lawn. They ask what was found regarding that data in this case. Speaker 2 responds that the case will reveal with great clarity whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area and whether the texts that many have questions about were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg, and whether Lance Twigg was in Southern Utah or in Orem. The main point is that people are asking how he could have known given the terrain and that Google Maps could not have allowed planning of the murder. They say the data will show paths, including whether he went the day before or weeks before, and will track all of that. Joseph Scott Morgan told them they would be able to track him from 8 Hundredth Street down through the tunnel, up around the Losey Building, up the stairs, onto the roof, from the roof out to the roofline, take the shot, jump off the Losey Building, run into the woods. They mention conspiracy videos claiming he was spotted at a cafe on security footage; some claimed the cafe owner saw him on security cameras, while others claimed it wasn’t consistent with a murderer’s behavior. They argue the FBI tracked him to that location, and that the next morning at 07:15 AM, a Cedar City Maverick gas station records his credit card use and follows his phone, his movements home, visits to Lance, and visits to his parents, with all phone calls, texts, and other data available. The forensic expert, Joseph Scott Morgan, asserts that next to the gun, the cell phone data will be the thing that ties Tyler Robinson directly to the person on that building, and there is doubt among some about trusting the FBI. The discussion ends with the assertion that geotracking will provide the crucial link.

"the time stamp is 12:44. Charlie Kirk was shot at 12:23." "So roughly about twenty minutes after that, he pulls in here, sits in the car park for a bit, and then drives out and then drives out of the car park and towards UVU." "This white car was parked up front closer to the camera as as we can see, and we can play this again." "the officer apparently did not have his body cam footage on." "Prosecution has a weak spot because that the messages, the the trans boyfriend messages, they don't have time stamps." "the gun that they showed initially, the picture New York Post published this. FBI never published a gun before that, right?" "This is not even the rifle." "composite stock on it." "There is enough camera footage now, somebody was telling me, and enough to for them to do, like, a ballistic sound. Acoustic forensics." "it sounds like a muffled, not like a 30 out six." "weak reload." "double DHT." "they're tainting the jury pool basically."

Speaker 0 describes rapid FBI mobilization following the shooting, stating resources were surged and multiple air assets deployed. Agents, evidence response technicians, hostage rescue technicians, and special operators were cycled in and out of Utah, with evidence transported on FBI planes to prevent delay. By around 5 PM local time on September 11, he and the deputy on the ground walked the entire crime scene, including the suspect’s footprinted area and the area the suspect used. They found evidence such as DNA on items collected, including a screwdriver found on the rooftop, and they went to the wooded area where the firearm was discarded, noting that the firearm had a towel wrapped around it. He emphasizes the importance of his investigative experience and states that with the support of President Trump and the White House, the necessary resources were provided. He adds that the DNA hits from the towel wrapped around the firearm and the screwdriver were positively processed for the suspect in custody. Speaker 1 counterpoints by referencing the Tyler Robinson indictment, asserting that there is nothing about a screwdriver or DNA on a screwdriver. He directs attention to page three, where the indictment states that DNA consistent with Robinson was found on the rifle’s trigger. He notes that after the shooting, Robinson hid the gun, and the indictment indicates DNA consistent with Robinson on the trigger, along with the rifle, ammunition rounds, towel, fired cartridge casing, two of the three unfired cartridges, and the towel being sent for forensic testing. He reiterates that there is nothing about a screwdriver in the indictment and plans to prove this by searching, finding no results for “screwdriver” or “screwdriver” mentions. He states there is nothing about a screwdriver in the entire indictment and invites readers to read it themselves. Speaker 1 questions why Cash Patel would claim there was a screwdriver with DNA, asking if it’s being saved for the trial and why it appears in the indictment.

The conversation centers on a controversial, conspiratorial claim that Charlie Kirk’s death was not caused by a rifle shot but by an exploding lavalier microphone containing a shaped charge, a military-style operation allegedly planned and executed with broad involvement and cover-up elements. Key points and assertions heard in the exchange: - The speakers reject the official narrative of a lone shooter, Tyler Robinson, and insist Charlie Kirk was killed by an exploding microphone rather than a 30-06 rifle shot. They describe the supposed weapon as a Rode lavalier microphone whose battery and circuit board were propelled by an internal shaped charge, causing a neck wound and brain damage. - They argue that evidence at the scene—shrapnel, the microphone’s shattered front, a battery and circuit board ejecting from the wound, and a distinctive neck injury pattern—cannot be reconciled with a rifle entry wound. They claim blood on the scene came from Charlie Kirk’s brain, not from the heart or circulatory system, and that the blood’s appearance and pooling indicate immediate brain trauma rather than post-injury bleeding. - There is repeated emphasis on the “shirt deformation,” necklace snapping, and the presence of gas/plume around the collar as indications of a gas-expulsion event consistent with a high-energy explosion near the microphone, not a ballistic impact. - John Bray (Speaker 1) provides technical demonstrations and plans to reproduce the neck wound and shirt deformation via simulations and physical reconstructions. He discusses mapping movement with AI to show that the most intense movement centers around the microphone, and he argues that only a high-energy explosive could generate the observed energy transfer and rapid tissue response. - Bray describes reconstructing the microphone internals in CAD, evaluating the possibility of a shaped charge, and reconfiguring the microphone case to fit a charge without compromising microphone function. He mentions needing access to high-energy explosives and discusses potential sources, such as oil-and-gas fracture practices that employ shaped charges. - The discussion includes descriptions of how the battery and circuit board allegedly exited the neck wound, and how the neck wound’s rectangular shape and delayed bleeding could be explained by a blunt-force impact from a blast, with the battery briefly plugging the wound before exiting. - Bray asserts that the presence of shrapnel from the microphone in the SUV and on clothing, plus the trajectory of a magnetic clasp across the body, supports a single-source energy event around the microphone rather than a rifle shot. He claims the trajectory and timing make rifle-based explanations untenable. - The host and Bray discuss the roles of various people connected to Turning Point USA and alleged participants in a larger conspiracy. They mention Fort Huachuca and UVU as places linked to pre-event planning, and reference meetings and conversations involving high-profile figures and politicians. - There is extensive talk about the public reception and challenges to their theory, including the difficulty of reproducing the exact trauma and wound dynamics, and the claim that mainstream or official narratives suppress or ignore the “truth” they see in the evidence. - Bray mentions ongoing work to replicate the neck wound within about 30 days and notes that reproducing the full explosive event is more complex, requiring careful selection and sourcing of appropriate high-energy materials. He emphasizes that even without replicating the exact explosion, reproducing the neck wound and shirt movement would be strong evidence against the rifle narrative. - The discussion veers into related political and media insinuations, including references to Epstein, the “pedophile cabal,” and Trump as an FBI informant, which are used to reinforce a sense of systemic conspiracy and media distrust. They propose public-facing dissemination of their findings and invite support, including promoting Bray’s work and related self-sufficiency projects. - Toward the end, the speakers discuss the possibility that Tyler Robinson may have been recruited or used as a patsy, with Bray suggesting he might have been promised online notoriety or other incentives, while insisting that Robinson is not the sole killer and that the microphone theory better accounts for the observed evidence. Overall, the transcript presents a tightly woven narrative that disputes the official account of Charlie Kirk’s death, contending that a high-energy explosive integrated into a microphone caused the fatal injury and that the visible physical effects—shirt movement, neck wound, collar gas, shrapnel, and blood patterns—are inconsistent with a gunshot wound. It foregrounds technical schematics, CAD reconstructions, and AI-based motion analysis as the basis for proving the claim, while describing a broader, conspiratorial project to expose a supposed government-orchestrated cover-up.

"The main shooter we're looking at came from the front, and I don't think it was that Tyler dude." "I think that Tyler dude is a patsy." "I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof." "So first, he drives and drops this gun off in the woods." "Then he drives and parks his car on campus." "Then he jumps off the roof with a 24 inch barrel somehow secured to his leg." "The videos that they're saying of him carrying that body, you can't see." "I think that dude on the roof is a patsy."

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss critical evidence surrounding Charlie Kirk’s shooting, focusing on the right ear as the entry point and a sequence of video frames showing increasing blood in that area. - Speaker 0 highlights that Charlie was shot in the right ear. In successive clips, the red area at the ear becomes darker, indicating blood. Color analysis of the area is said to match the color of blood from the neck wound, supporting a right-ear shot. A live color analysis is performed using Grok, with screenshots and annotations to compare regions around the ear and neck. - The two low-resolution images depict a brief temporal sequence showing the right lateral head and neck with regions of interest: a yellow arid region labeled neck wound containing a small dark red to crimson spot consistent with fresh arterial or venous blood egress from a puncture wound approximately 1–2 cm inferior to the mandible. The hue is described as vivid scarlet (150–200 red, 0–50 green/blue) with minimal surrounding tissue distortion. A green arrow region (superior aspect near the mastoid/posterior auricle) shifts from neutral skin tone to a subtle darkening (brownish red) in the second frame. A blue arrow region shows a neutral flesh tone in the left image and a faint reddish overlay in the right image, possibly indicating localized hyperemia, blood splatter, or motion blur. Overall, minimal global color shifts are observed; the ear area does not display a prominent red hue in either frame, though minor shifts are noted. - The color analysis suggests the posterior region near the ear could plausibly indicate early blood spillover from the ear canal, consistent with vascular disruption in middle/inner ear structures after a penetrating injury. However, low image resolution, motion blur, and compression artifacts introduce uncertainty; higher-resolution images and forensic enhancement would be required for confirmation. - Speaker 1 and Grok concur that definitive confirmation requires higher-resolution angles; the analysis supports that bleeding could be present but is not conclusive on its own. - The pair discuss the sequence where blood wells up from the ear canal and then disappears as the hairline recedes from view in subsequent images, reinforcing the notion of blood involvement near the ear and supporting a right-ear entry. - They emphasize that the shooter could not have been from the Losey Building based on a combination of the ear-to-neck vector analysis and a 3D model. Speaker 0 presents a vector analysis: a direct vector from the right ear canal to the neck exit wound yields a 42.6-degree angle; momentum would reduce this angle, giving a smaller angle (about 9.17 degrees, then 8.4 degrees off from the 03:00 position). The model places the shooter in the corner of the BA Building, not the Losey Building. The conclusion is that Paolo Robinson was not the shooter and did not fire from the Losey Building. - Speaker 0 argues that the crime narrative is being pushed by the FBI and others, asserting that Tyler Robinson was wrongfully pursued and that he could not have killed Charlie Kirk. They discuss the potential need to drop charges and pursue due process, noting that a high-profile defense attorney (Sam Parker) is ready to take the case pro bono, but a judge is reportedly not allowing it. - They acknowledge that while the sound analysis could provide corroborating evidence of additional shots, the main point is proving there is no viable shot from the Losey Building. They reiterate that even if Tyler were on the Losey Building or had a gun, he did not kill Charlie Kirk. - The conversation closes with plans to continue analyses, obtain higher-resolution imagery, and pressure authorities to pursue proper due process, with an emphasis on disproving the Losey Building shooter hypothesis.

Two speakers discuss a tip about video footage of Tyler Robinson. The informant says "I've been trying to get in touch with Candace Owens" and that "the FBI came to my job... and informed me that his phone pinged in this parking lot." They say the FBI was "going in her shopping center... to retrieve video footage" and shows "Tyler Robinson's car pulling into the parking lot" with a "white SUV" nearby. They claim "This video specifically doesn't make sense" because a person who just committed an assassination would not linger in a parking lot. They reference "surveillance footage" from the FBI in Utah that shows Tyler jumping off the roof and argue the rifle was "reassembled again." They cite Candace Owens' insider saying Tyler never admitted to being on UVU campus and question why law enforcement has not released the full footage, suggesting possible involvement of others.

Speaker 0 says they downloaded nearly original footage from the incident and note that reuploads compress the file, referencing “the national file,” and aim to “disprove this or not.” Speaker 1 points to Charlie Kirk: “how many You see him right there? That’s him debating with somebody here right before he gets shot.” “He got shot from his right hand side on that side coming out here.” They discuss a rooftop shooter theory, noting walls, bleachers, and that “you got shot from rooftop.” They show a rooftop trajectory diagram: “count with me… flat surface one, flat surface two, and then flat surface three… almost up on four,” arguing the shooter would have a straight shot at Charlie. They claim “this is 100% the shot” and say “the mic… was the first entry wound” is incorrect; “there is no entry wound on the left side of his neck. He got hit on the right side.” They demand CCTV footage release from Turning Point, noting cameras and a cameraman, and urge campus footage to verify angles, mentioning trees “above the rooftop” and needing to see if the edge of the roof is visible. They conclude the shooter was on the highest point and that multiple cameras likely captured it.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss contemporary conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk. They state they do not believe the theory that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and, as it stands right now, think it was Tyler Robinson. They both agree on this point regarding the alleged killer. Speaker 1 shifts to addressing Nick Fuentes, noting they weren’t going to come for him until he called Ian Carroll “retarded.” Ian Carroll allegedly appeared in a livestream pleading with Speaker 0 to join in on the conspiracy. Speaker 1 repeats the insult, saying, “If you think that I feel sorry for you because you are retarded.” They challenge the credibility of claims about a “furry trans lover” storyline, asserting that discord’s own statements say the furry trans motive screenshots didn’t come from their servers. The discussion moves to alleged forensic and investigative inconsistencies. They reference a father identifying his son from a grainy rooftop silhouette before police have real evidence, and claim that the FBI has four-k footage showing the shot but left that part out. They question the ballistic details: a .30-06 round, known for blowing through concrete blocks and obliterating bone, allegedly gets stopped by Charlie’s “Superman like neck.” They note the absence of visible ballistic mess or blood spatter and question how bulletproof the spine would be. They claim the rifle was “disassembled within seconds after taking the shot” yet was found “fully assembled in the woods.” They state that the shooter stuffs the rifle in his pants to jump off, which clashes with the rifle being recovered fully assembled. They express skepticism about the overall narrative, suggesting that Nick Fuentes may be paid off or had his career threatened over this issue, and conclude that whatever the truth is, it is “not a good look” for Nick Fuentes. In summary, the speakers reject the claim that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and attribute it to Tyler Robinson; they criticize Nick Fuentes for engaging with conspiratorial narratives, challenge the veracity of related forensic and anecdotal claims, highlight inconsistencies in timelines and weapon handling, and suggest possible financial or career motive implications, framing the situation as damaging for Nick Fuentes.

Speaker 0 argues the Charlie Kirk story keeps getting weirder. They claim a random trans shooter was on the roof, took this shot, runs across into the rooftop, jumps down, somehow undetected because the FBI releases a video footage. Was this when he was walking into the building, then he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior, and he somehow managed to walk back in the second time without the weapon. If he left with a weapon and hid it in the woods, why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving? They say he runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods. If you were running, you wouldn't carry the rifle with you. He wore an American flag shirt. The FBI with all their resources, that's the best photo? Didn’t we watch Criminal Minds? They claim BAU would rerender that image and get it pixel perfect. Face recognition software could redigitalize that kid's face with AI to pixel perfect; this is weird.

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.

Discussion centers on claims about the Charlie Kirk assassination, including a side shot. The presenter says "there's now a shooter on the roof" and an eyewitness states the shooter was "wearing tactical gear" and described "the exact type of weapon... a two two three round." A bystander video shows "somebody on the roof" and the eyewitness asserts the shooter was "highly trained, like a highly trained assassin" and that the footage's metadata "begins at 12:22 and goes into 12/23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." The speaker adds the shooter "looked like a foreign agent" and "not jeans." Another claim: "the FBI's official story is false" with video of an "entry and exit wound," though another participant says "it's not blood splatter. That's literally his necklace getting snapped off and flying over the back of his neck." The discussion concludes with "Cash should resign."