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."

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.”

"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: "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."

According to the FBI, Tyler was positioned here and took the shot. The video they provided to us, and it's edited. It starts as Tyler's running off the roof, but this is that rooftop vent; had they given us the full video, we should have been able to see Tyler in this area with his back or with his backpack and his gear and assembling, disassembling the gun, whatever the FBI is saying. But instead, we get the video of him running off the roof. We don't get the full video. The camera was positioned somewhere right here. This is the field of view of the camera. So we've got an edited version, and I think we need to push to get the whole version.

Speaker 0 introduced the topic of cell phone tracking and forensic geofencing data, noting that the same tracking methods used in January 6 were capable of determining whether someone went onto the steps or onto the lawn, and where they were exactly. The question was what findings exist regarding this data in the current case. Speaker 1 answered that the investigation will reveal with great clarity whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area, whether the text messages involving many questions were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg, and whether Lance Twigg was in Southern Utah or also in Orem. The main point is addressing how he could have known certain details based on terrain, given that he was not a student at the school. It is stated that it would be unlikely to have planned a murder from Google Maps, and that the authorities will determine this from the cell phone pathway—whether he went the day before or weeks before, and tracking all of that. Speaker 1 relayed information from forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan, who claimed they would be able to track Tyler Robinson from 8 Hundredth Street through a tunnel, around the Losey Building, up the stairs to the roof, from the roof to the roofline, take the shot, jump off the Losey Building, and run into the woods. The speaker also mentioned conspiracy videos suggesting he was seen on a café security system; although the footage is limited, it exists, and some claim the FBI tracked him to that location. The next morning, at 7:15 AM, at a Cedar City Maverick gas station, it is claimed he swiped a credit card, and the phone was followed to his home, to visits with Lance, and to his parents. All calls, texts, and other phone activity are said to be known. Speaker 1 summarized that the forensic expert states that next to the gun, the cell phone data will be the element that ties Tyler Robinson directly to the person on the building, and that geotracking will reveal where his phone was at all times on that day. The response also notes skepticism about trust in the FBI, but emphasizes that geotracking will demonstrate the phone’s location during the day in question.

Stephen Gardner argues that the smoking gun will be the geolocation data next to the DNA evidence on the rifle, asserting that DNA would be on the trigger, but geolocation is needed to implicate Tyler Robinson. He questions relying on geolocation data when video evidence exists, noting CCTV footage should show Tyler Robinson’s movements: entering the parking lot, walking through the garage, onto the roof, under the bridge, into the Losey Building, and more. He criticizes the need for experts and geolocation, saying that if Kesh Patel picked up a screwdriver at the crime scene, it would not necessarily hurt the case, and questions how geolocation could be the smoking gun after a murder broadcast on live TV. He adds a personal jab about growing up in a trailer and dismisses experts, contrasting with the video footage that he believes should be sufficient. Ryan Mehta introduces the discussion about cell phone tracking and forensic geofencing data, comparing it to methods used in January 6 to determine people’s exact locations on the steps or lawn. He asks what will be found in this case regarding Tyler Robinson and the text messages between him and Lance Twigg, questioning whether Twigg was in Southern Utah or in Orem. He states that investigators could determine if Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area and track whether the messages were sent from Orem. The main point, according to him, is that the forensic data would reveal whether Tyler Robinson knew terrain details not associated with a student at the school, and whether the murder could have been planned from Google Maps. Speaker Joe Scott Morgan, cited by Mehta, notes that they will be able to track Tyler Robinson’s movements from eight hundredth Street through tunnels, around the Losey Building, up stairs to the roof, from the roof to the edge, the shot, then the escape into the woods, and mentions conspiracy videos claiming he was seen on a cafe’s security system. Mehta mentions conspiracy theories about how he could kill Charlie Kirk and be in his car twenty minutes later, arguing that a murderer’s behavior could vary. He claims the FBI tracked him to a location after the crime, identifying him at Cedar City Maverick gas station at 07:15 AM, noting card swipes and phone activity to show home visits, interactions with Lance, and visits to his parents. The belief is that phone calls, texting, and other data would tie Tyler Robinson directly to the person on the building, addressing doubts about trusting the FBI and the role of geotracking as the potential smoking gun.

The discussion centers on forensic cell phone tracking and geofencing data, the same methods that were used to track individuals in January 6 cases, including whether someone went onto the steps, onto the lawn, or exactly where they were. The speakers indicate that investigators can determine an individual’s precise movements and locations through cell phone data. The key point is that in this case, it will become clear whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area, and whether the text messages that have raised questions—whether those messages were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg—place Lance Twigg in Southern Utah or also in Orem. The main outcome anticipated is clarity about Robinson’s location, but importantly, the discussion emphasizes the ability to reconstruct movements and associations from cell phone data. The speakers note that people are asking how Robinson could have known about certain details based on terrain, given that he was not a student at the school, and they argue that Google Maps alone would not explain this. They assert that the path of his cell phone—whether he went the day before or weeks before—will be accessible, allowing investigators to track his movements comprehensively. A forensic expert, Joseph Scott Morgan, is cited as saying they would be able to trace his movement from 8 Hundredth Street, down through a tunnel, around the Losey Building, up the stairs, onto the roof, from the roof out to the roofline, where the shot was taken, and then to him running into the woods. The conversation also references conspiracy videos claiming to see him on a cafe’s security system—claiming his car is visible—arguing that this is not necessarily inconsistent with a murderer’s behavior, since a killer could be in a car while amped up on adrenaline. The speakers explain that the cafe owner could only review such surveillance if the FBI tracked him to that location; they discuss how geolocation and surveillance data would be used to corroborate movements, including how, the next morning at 7:15 AM, at a Cedar City Maverick gas station, he swipes a credit card and the authorities follow his phone, tracking when he goes home, whether he visits Lance, and when he visits his parents, with a full trail of calls, texts, and movements. The forensic expert, Joseph Scott Morgan, emphasizes that aside from the gun, the cell phone data will be the key element tying Tyler Robinson directly to the person on the building, and that geotracking will reveal where his phone was at all times on that day, addressing doubts about the FBI’s methods and reliability.

In the discussion, the speakers focus on forensic details and the handling of evidence surrounding the Charlie Kirk case and Tyler Robinson. Stefan Gardner is cited as stating that “dust samples alone will go a long way in ending speculation about Tyler Robinson fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk,” arguing that the dust on the rocks will have a unique signature and will be on the killer’s clothes, gun, and shoes. The dust and soil samples are expected to show dust on the tread of shoes and soil where the gun was laid, and gun residue on the hands from handling the weapon. A forensic expert is quoted saying the roof where the shooting occurred was covered in pebbles and rocks, so dust signatures will be found on the shooter’s clothes, gun, and shoes, and that the car is also a major part of the evidence due to dust, soil, and gun residue on the steering wheel from the shooter’s hands. There is discussion about the sequence of events: the shooter allegedly disassembling or reassembling the gun, laying down a towel, firing, rolling up the gun, and leaving within about fourteen seconds to flee into the woods. The possibility is mentioned that the shooter could be identified by dust on the gear and by the car evidence. James Lee responds to the crowd, accusing others of focusing on dust samples while dismissing the need to first match the bullet to a gun, calling out the discussion as clownish. The conversation anticipates trial evidence including shoe DNA and other forensic marks, with a sense that official video footage might be suppressed or lost while experts testify about the evidence. The speakers criticize the FBI narrative, arguing that none of the FBI’s presented evidence has made sense, particularly challenging the 30-06 caliber discussion. They reference a prior demonstration with a 30-06 round fired into a setup of meat to simulate a neck wound, a steel plate, and a two-liter bottle, asserting that even the smallest 30-06 round would not produce the described result at the distance claimed, and suggesting Tyler Robinson would have been inside 150 yards. There is insistence that video footage exists and should be released to restore trust, including CCTV footage showing Tyler Robinson’s movements on campus—climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and sprinting away. They call for CCTV footage and autopsy video to be released, along with video showing Tyler Robinson at the crime scene for four hours, arguing that the investigation would be more transparent if these materials were made public rather than kept from the public eye. The speakers express distrust of the FBI and other agencies, alleging deep state manipulation and claiming that video and DNA evidence could be forged or misrepresented, while demanding concrete, visible evidence in the form of footage and autopsy details.

"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 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.'

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 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.

Claim: 'Because we now have CCTV footage of Tyler Robinson at a different location than the university twenty minutes after the shooting.' The footage comes from 'convict to conservative,' a channel with 536 followers, pushed to 5-10k. 'Les Effer Lounge' (Pia) DM’d Ryan that she has footage of Tyler twenty minutes after the shooting; the FBI pinged Tyler's cell phone at this location and asked for CCTV. She shows security cams and asks, 'do you guys want me to do anything with this?' The FBI replied, 'That's all we needed. We got copies of it.' Time stamps: 12:44; 12:46; 12:47. The footage 'shed so much shade on the FBI's narrative' and questions why Tyler would be in a parking lot after the allegedly 'blew Charlie Kirk's head off.' Text messages: 'the FBI, when the cell phone was turned on, it sent a signal, and he said it was here.'

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.

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.'

On behalf of every single American citizen, we’re all thinking exactly what Morgan Ariel is tweeting. She goes by at itsmorganariel on X, gives her girl a follow. 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. 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 awfully 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. 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 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 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.

"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."

The speakers discuss campus CCTV coverage, insisting, "There should be cameras everywhere. Every fucking where." They critique the released footage, saying it "only shows the suspect running and jumping off the roof," and note a "15 minute gap" where he’s allegedly unseen, with cameras supposedly everywhere. They argue the CCTV would have captured him on multiple rooftops—specifically the Losey Center roof at about 12:41, with a jump at 12:23—and say the cops should have that footage. They question the 10 frames per second video and the storage needs, "'76 terabytes' mentioned by an expert." They explore an alternate theory involving the Woodbury Building and the FG Building, needing footage of both for angles and heights, and mention Candace's reporting could throw it out. They reference "two protesters on roofs," Uvalde-style CCTV quality, and a $200 payment to obtain additional footage, with a drive link to be shared.