TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker highlights clips with a red circle, saying, "holy shit, that is the bullet. It matches the exit wound, it also matches the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." He adds, "in that video you can see the same what appears to be the bullet coming down and it does line up with the actual gunshot itself," and, "you can see something go down into the back right hand side of, of Charlie." Using Google Earth, he states, "his tent being set up in the middle of that triangle area would appear that the shooter was up here somewhere. That's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "It all makes sense to me, pretty crazy." He argues location: "rooftop access there but there's also a staircase down in the little alley there in that little nook so it's to me, it's pretty obvious that the shooter was 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."

"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: "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."

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

There was a lone shooter, and we had grainy footage of somebody jumping off a roof; it was established there was one person we were looking for, and that gave us the shooting scene at a spot about 140 yards away with roof indents. "where that shot was allegedly taken from with the weapon allegedly used, is a 30 aught six, the wound is entirely inconsistent with that weapon in that spot. It really just couldn't have happened exactly like they said. This is a very easy through and through round. This is not there's really no bones in the way." "And the way ballistics works is is bullets go in a straight line until and unless something acts on them. ... there was no exit wound." "Right? So what do we do with that information? And the only thing I can think to do with that information is to posit that this round shot at this angle would have gone through and through the neck easy. It probably would have gone through five necks in a row."

"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."

The speaker asserts that Charlie Kirk was shot from the front and that the bullet did not exit his body, with at least a fragment of the bullet recovered from his neck. This is presented as the part of the story that is true and is claimed to dispel various theories. The speaker states they have fact-checked this information from multiple sources over more than a week of review. The fragment is described as being recovered “right around here,” approximately in line with Charlie Kirk’s shoulder blade, near the center of the back, in a location “almost in line with your shoulder blade.” The speaker argues this location provides a bullet trajectory: the bullet entered in the described area, was stopped there, and a fragment was pulled from the neck region along the spine’s line. A key point emphasized is that a .30-06 round was not recovered intact. The speaker asserts that there was no recovered bullet from a .30-06, stating that “They did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six. They didn’t recover a bullet from a 30 odd six. Just didn't happen.” They contrast this with the presence of .30-06 bullets in some context, implying that while .30-06 rounds were found, no complete bullet was recovered. The speaker notes that death certificates in suicide cases typically reflect the gun and the bullet when both are known, and claims that there is not a bullet reflected on Charlie Kirk’s death certificate because a .30-06 bullet was not recovered. The speaker asserts that the information has been cross-checked with multiple sources and that it undermines other theories, reinforcing that common sense supports their account. The closing remark addresses hunters and military personnel, acknowledging agreement with their perspective: “Hunters and military men rejoice. It turns out that common sense still rules the roost. Okay? You guys were right.”

The video investigates whether Charlie Kirk was wearing a vest and how that could change perspective. The narrator, who says he knows nothing about guns but trusts Kyle Sarifen, passes through what Kyle showed him. Viewers are asked to watch the chest reaction before a neck hole appears, with explanations that a white vest under the shirt could hide a bullet hole or black letters on the shirt could be struck. The shooter’s position is argued; a shot from the opposite side is unlikely. The speaker suggests the most likely scenario is that Kirk wore a white vest; a long rifle bullet went through the vest, through the chest, hit the spinal cord, and ricocheted out the throat. Blood splatter could be explained if the vest prevented splatter. CCTV footage is referenced; the speaker remains uncertain about a trans shooter and distrusts FBI statements. Kyle’s gun expertise is highlighted.

Speaker, relying on Kyle Sarifen, analyzes a clip to explore whether Charlie Kirk wore a bulletproof vest. He points to a chest reaction before a neck wound and suggests two possibilities for the missing visible bullet hole: a white vest under the shirt or the round touching the shirt’s black letters. The mic being knocked off is cited as evidence of impact. A shot from the side is argued unlikely given the neck angle. The proposed scenario: the vest was white, the bullet goes through the vest and chest, hits bone or the spinal cord, ricochets, and exits the throat, causing a wound and blood seen through the shirt. The shooter is described as possibly a long rifle shooter; doubt is cast on a trans shooter; CCTV footage is referenced; FBI skepticism mentioned. Kyle is described as someone who does this for a living, and comments are invited.

Steven (interviewer) and Charlie Kirk’s discussion covers the Charlie Kirk shooting at the Utah Valley University campus, the evidence, theories, and ongoing investigations. The key points are: - Two narratives around the incident: many are angry about the Gaza-Israel war, while others note Charlie Kirk was irritated about defending Israel more than America and about a Jewish donor pulling money; this discrepancy led some to speculate about Israeli involvement, though no definitive link is presented in their discussion. - The microphone/explosion theory and the “exploding mic” explanation are challenged. The mic is deemed too small to cause the observed effects, there is no residue, and the shirt’s cavitation can account for the shirt puffing without an explosion. They discuss the lack of burns or tears and conclude the exploding-mic theory does not fit the evidence they examined. - On the terrain and line of sight: a walkthrough of the scene revealed the Losey Building is two or three stories tall, with Charlie Kirk in a lower amphitheater area; the shooter, Tyler Robinson, fired from above, shooting downward. The terrain and proximity were difficult to gauge from Google Maps, and being physically present changed their understanding of distances and angles. The shooter’s position, sightlines, and the potential visibility of the shooter’s face or gun from the roof were clarified through on-site observation. - Handprint and measurement observations: a handprint believed to be from Tyler Robinson was found on the roof edge, accompanied by a measurement tape suggesting a length around 36 to 40 inches, consistent with the length of a rifle. A yellow tape measure taped to the building and later footage from a telescoping camera supported this assessment. There was discussion about whether the handprint length corresponded to a rifle’s size, and whether a towel on the shooter concealed a weapon. - Video and evidence release: there is an ongoing investigation, and authorities have not released all video or autopsy details. They emphasize the rights of Tyler Robinson to due process; unlike a deceased suspect, Robinson is alive and defense counsel is heavily involved. Investigators have used lasers, measurements, and other techniques at the crime scene, but not all footage is publicly shared during ongoing proceedings. - Autopsy and ballistic questions: debates about wound direction (front versus rear entry), exit wounds, and the possibility that a 30-06 round could be consistent with the neck wound; a front-entry or behind-back trajectory is discussed. Forensic experts describe how X-rays and ballistic analysis will determine the bullet’s path and fragments, while noting that the death certificate does not specify the bullet type, which is a common practice. - Candace Owens and donor-related DM discussions: Candace released DMs in which Charlie Kirk reportedly said, “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.” They discuss whether those messages indicate Israel involvement or donor pressure. Steven argues donors may have wanted Kirk to uphold Judeo-Christian values and that the donor dynamics could explain some tensions, but they do not conclude an Israeli conspiracy. - Discord chats, text messages, and “trans terror cell” theories: they discuss the possibility of Discord chats and messages being forged or taken out of context; some theories mention a transgender cell or coordinated conspiracies. Steven notes Kash Patel announced investigations into conspiracy theories, but as of now no arrests have occurred. The Discord exchanges were described as real in part, but their relevance to planning remains uncertain; there is speculation about premeditation versus reactive admissions. - Other theories and debunkings: theories such as trapdoors, tunnels, or irrigation pipes were addressed and dismissed. Claims about an Egyptian military plane, drones, or a private jet turning off transponders were also discussed and generally debunked or dismissed based on timing, geolocation, and official statements. - Weapon specifics and trajectory: Matt Tardio and Chris Martenson are referenced regarding the ballistics and wound mechanics; Steven suggests the 30-06 wound is plausible if the cartridge quality and angle were favorable, but emphasizes that more autopsy details and bullet analysis are required. He expects more evidence to emerge during the trial, including ballistics, gun residue on the shooter’s clothes and car, and the shooter’s geolocation data. - Trust in institutions: the conversation closes with a note that, regardless of the findings, trust in institutions like the FBI heavily influences how people accept or reject the evidence and conclusions. They acknowledge that even with extensive surveillance footage and forensic analysis, public trust will shape the reception of any official findings. Steven commends the coverage for being thorough and methodical across multiple theories. In summary, the discussion blends现场 observations with ongoing investigative questions: the on-site terrain clarified shooting angles, the handprint and measurement evidence suggested rifle length, and the autopsy/ballistics details remain pending; many alternative theories (explosive mic, trapdoors, drone activity, coordinated conspiracies, or donor-driven motives) are discussed and evaluated against observed evidence, with a general emphasis on awaiting official forensic results and trial proceedings.

"holy shit, that is the bullet." "It matches the exit wound, it also matches the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." "I needed another angle just to see if this was actually fact trying to get as much info as I could before I posted anything" "from this looking at Google Earth and drawing a line from where I believe the shooter was, his tent being set up in the middle of that triangle area would appear that the shooter was up here somewhere." "That's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "Somewhere on those stairs would be my tip, and if the FBI aren't looking there, I don't know why."

Speaker questions whether Charlie Kirk wore a bulletproof vest and says this could change perspectives. He admits little about guns but trusts Kyle Sarifen who walked him through it. The video shows a chest reaction and suggests something hit the shirt before the neck. Two explanations for no visible bullet hole: a white vest underneath or the round struck letters on the shirt. The mic being flung off implies an impact. They argue a shot from that side is unlikely due to head angle. They propose: a white vest under the shirt, a round passing through the vest, hitting chest, spinal cord, ricocheting to exit the throat, with blood coming through the shirt. They think a long rifle from an angle is likely; not convinced about a trans shooter; CCTV footage could settle it. They refrain from stating who shot, and note FBI questions; Kyle is described as an expert.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not a lone shooter, citing messages they've received. The speaker questions why many Americans find the situation "doesn't add up," listing details such as the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone use, and being spotted with a rangefinder. The speaker, identifying as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. They ask if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt, imprison, and depict the target as "a modern day Hitler." The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, and if they received reports of anything "fishy" there, such as silverware or trash. They ask if the home was extremely clean, "almost like a medical lab," stating that's what they are hearing.

Speaker, a marine scout sniper who 'did that for five years,' says 'the FBI lies to us' and urges to start with 'no preconceived notion.' He defines four camera angles: 'This is camera angle one,' 'This is camera angle two,' 'This is camera angle three,' and 'Cam four is here.' He notes 'Bullet, Charlie' and 'This is an exit wound in the neck and the entry wound doesn't cause that immediately.' The earpiece is described: 'the earpiece flying off' and 'the cord is running down through the neck... pulls the collar up.' He mentions a 'temporary cavity' and a supposed laser: 'a laser strikes the lens' and 'the dot travels up... Charlie's hit.' He estimates calibers: 'I assumed... a 38' and 'nine mil' and says 'they claim rifle.' He concludes: 'FBI is lying. It's quite literally not possible for the shooter to have been on the roof that they claim.'

Something's wrong. I know I shouldn't do this. I'm risking an awful lot to go up against this FBI, the MAGA FBI. There was no rifle in his hand. It is not easy to remove a Mauser barrel or index it after reinstalling and remain accurate. The photo of the rifle allegedly left in the woods has the barrel installed. So we're supposed to believe a guy is on the run after killing Charlie Kirk and he pauses in the woods to reinstall a barrel. I don't believe a word of it. I can't take the bullshit from this fucking government. It's lying to us. Something's wrong with this whole fucking picture. Sean Hannity immediately, that pimp scumbag goes on the air and repeats the government lie that lousy son of a bitch. I don't buy one word of this narrative, not one single word.

Speaker questions the narrative: 'random trans shooter' on the roof who 'took this shot' and was 'undetected' because the FBI released video footage. He asks if this means 'he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior' and wonders 'why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?' He questions the lack of footage—'why don't we have any images of this kid leaving the school?' and 'video footage of this kid jumping off the roof?' He says, 'he runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods' and argues, 'you definitely wouldn't carry the rifle with you' to blend in, citing 'an American flag shirt on.' He references 'criminal minds' and BAU, concluding, 'This is weird, guys. This is freaking weird.'

Rob was asked about his viral comments on the Piers Morgan show and the ongoing discussion around Charlie Kirk’s assassination. He says from the outset he smelled a rat and didn’t buy the official narrative being spun. He notes that when he first heard Kirk was shot and saw the video, an exit wound coming out of the neck and the movement of the shirt suggested an impact nearby, which didn’t fit what he’d expect from his experience with ballistics. Rob describes the sequence: the FBI announces they’ve got the shooter, a man on the roof “took it apart,” put a scope on, fired a cold bore shot, then jumped to a roof, wrapped it up, and sent texts that didn’t sound like a 22-year-old. He says he’s typically drawn to the simplest explanation, but asking questions leads to being torn down. He emphasizes he never claimed Israel was responsible, but says asking questions is met with accusations of antisemitism. He raises questions about security procedures after Kirk was down, asking what happened to the lapel mic, the SIM card, and who took the camera behind him, and whether crime-scene contamination occurred, whether the area was repaved or rebuilt, and whether the gravesite exists and how the stadium event was organized so quickly. Rob recounts how, when he asks questions, he’s labeled antisemitic or a conspiracy theorist, even though he says he’s “killed a bunch of people for the country” and wants to know why a great American was killed in front of everyone. He notes the FBI’s inconsistent statements, such as claiming the weapon was a 30-06 rifle, showing a gun image, and various excuses like a ricochet off body armor followed by later claims that there was no body armor, then again something else. He questions what would happen to a neck with a 30-06, suggests the autopsy report should be released, and asks why the chair and desk were moved, implying potential forensic implications. Speaker 1 (Rob) emphasizes uncertainty: he wasn’t there, so he can’t say for certain, but there are questions about whether a shot was taken or if a shaped charge or other device could have been involved. He asks where the gun, the bullets, and the ballistic evidence are, and why there isn’t clear video showing the moment the shot was fired. He notes that much of the official footage is “potato footage” from many cameras, while the supposed key video isn’t released. Towards the end, the host comments on common accusations and mislabeling when challenging the official narrative. Rob thanks the host, and they acknowledge continuing discussions, with Rob offering to provide “solid conspiracies.” They close with mutual well-wishes and a light joke about conspiracies.

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.

"What you're watching here, you're gonna watch the reaction." "Something is hitting that shirt before it goes through his neck." "There could easily be a white vest under it." "Or what I just realized here is you guys have black letters on there." "That round could have very possibly touched one of those black letters." "The shirt looks like after the fact, but he did even have this mic on here." "There is no way to get that angle of that shot." "the vest goes through this, hits something inside, ricochets back out, comes out the top." "it most likely was a long rifle." "I'm still not convinced of the trans shooter." "There have been lies that the FBI has told us." "Kyle's Kyle does this stuff for a living." "Drop some comments below."

Questions the claim that 'some random trans shooter was on the roof, took this shot, runs across into the rooftop, jumps down, somehow magically being undetected because the FBI releases a a video footage.' He asks if he had 'planted the gun on the roof prior' and how he could 'walk back in the second time without the weapon.' He questions why 'we don't have any images of this kid leaving the school' or 'any video footage of this kid jumping off the roof,' and notes he 'runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods' while wearing 'an American flag shirt.' He doubts the FBI photo is the best they can provide and references 'criminal minds' and 'the BAU' that would 'rerender that image' to be 'pixel perfect' with 'face recognition software.' Contrasts movie-like tech with reality, calling it '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.

The video discusses the shooting of Charlie and examines the official narrative. The host notes that the official story is a sniper on a roof at roughly 130–140 yards, using a 30-06 bolt-action rifle, with ammunition that impacted Charlie’s neck and left no exit wound. He mentions that conservative media outlets have asked him whether this is plausible, and that Alex Jones reported TP USA sources claiming the bullet entered Charlie’s back at a downward angle and stayed there. Key points about the 30-06 are explained for context. The caliber was the US military standard in World War I and II, making it an older design. A comparison is shown with a 5.56 and a 0.308 projectile to illustrate size: the 30-06 bullet appears large, but ballistically it is very similar to the 0.308 due to powder improvements over time. The host emphasizes that many people now have experience with 0.308, so his discussion centers on terminal performance in soft tissue rather than cartridge shape alone. Several ballistic factors are highlighted. Bullets for 30-06 in 2025 vary widely in weight, typically 150–180 grains, with some as light as 110 grains and up to 200+ grains. Lighter, longer bullets can have higher ballistic coefficients, meaning they travel through air with less resistance and are very stable in flight, but they destabilize more quickly in soft tissue. He notes that higher ballistic coefficient projectiles may behave differently upon impact, potentially increasing the likelihood of atypical behavior upon penetrating flesh. However, the exact projectile type (full metal jacket, open-tip match, soft point, etc.) is unknown, and the FBI has released no information about the actual projectile. Regarding the probability of the reported scenario (a downward-angle hit with a 30-06 leaving no exit wound), the host estimates the odds as very small but not impossible. He provides a rough quantified sense: if this scenario happened a thousand times under the same conditions, it might occur one or two times. He stresses that it’s very unlikely that such a powerful round would leave no exit wound, but not impossible. He notes he has seen angles from different views suggesting no exit wound. He proposes that if the FBI and law enforcement want public confidence in the story, more information should be released. For example, if the bullet stayed in the upper torso, one would expect to see a temporary cavity forming as the bullet penetrates, and such cavitation would be evident in an autopsy; no autopsy details have been released in his view. He reiterates that the official account is highly improbable based on his experience with ballistics, armor, gel, and animals, but not proven impossible. The host invites questions in the comments and on his social media, asks viewers to say a prayer for Charlie and his family, and closes the video.

"So we're supposed to believe that some random trans shooter was on the roof, took this shot, runs across into the rooftop, jumps down, somehow magically being undetected because the FBI releases a a video footage." "Was this when he was walking into the building, the 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." "And then because if he left with a weapon and hid it in the woods, then why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?" "Didn't we watch criminal minds as a kid? Like, they have this super advanced software where they upload the image, and then the FBI just does their like, where's the BAU at and shit?" "Face recognition software. Match on the nose, ears, Boom. There he is."

"I thought the feds were saying they were looking for a bullet at some point, which is now very alarming to me. I don't understand that. How could they have been looking for a bullet? Because if I'm not seeing, and there isn't. I'm telling you, what happens in the front is not what happens in the back at all." "If I'm not seeing any blood, what what are we to take from that? The only thing that could make sense if what they're saying is true and that person took the shot from the place that they are saying that individual took the shot from, it would suggest that it it's a it it was inside of Charlie. Right? And they would know that. The feds would have known that." "So they would have communicated that they were never looking for a bullet."