reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the famous photograph of classified documents was staged and the documents were placed by the FBI. According to the speaker, Jack Smith admitted in court to mishandling the classified documents and misrepresenting them to the court, which the speaker equates to evidence tampering and lying to the court. The speaker asserts that Trump's lawyers caught the discrepancy between the documents presented and the digitally scanned records. Smith allegedly admitted he doesn't know how the tampering happened and has blown the chain of custody. The speaker also alleges that lead prosecutor Jay Bratt met with White House counsel and a representative of the National Archives before Smith's appointment. The speaker compares this situation to Crossfire Hurricane, claiming the Obama-Biden administration fabricated evidence and lied to the court to pursue Donald Trump. The speaker believes the judge hasn't dismissed the case yet because she wants to document it publicly.

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."

The transcript centers on the claim that the Jerusalem Post was first to report Charlie Kirk’s death, a mere thirty-one minutes after he was shot in Utah, and argues that such rapid publication implies inside information from someone connected to the inner circle. Key timeline details and claims: - The shooting occurred at 12:54 local Utah time. The Jerusalem Post reportedly published the death notice about thirty-one minutes later, prompting questions about how such fast reporting could occur without insider access. - Police audio indicates the transport route to the hospital was not via the freeway but on a surface street adjacent to the freeway, described as dark blue in a map photo. Under normal conditions, travel on that route would take eight to twelve minutes; the speakers claim they were traveling at high speed, estimating seven to ten minutes to reach the hospital, with the freeway alternative taking six to nine minutes. - Audio is played in which a responder notes a black SUV northbound with a passenger door open, suggesting someone may have been a victim. - The account describes a rapid, improvised medical and evacuation response. The speakers claim: they did not attempt to close the door, Justin drove aggressively, Dan was giving precise directions, and the team cut through intersections to reach the hospital. - At the hospital, the team purportedly loaded Charlie into a gurney, carried him to a room, and the speaker cut off his shirt (the “White Freedom shirt”) to allow access for a defibrillator and drugs. They claim to have interacted with staff during treatment, including pushing drugs and assisting with defibrillation. - Speaker 3 confirms that upon arrival at the hospital, Charlie initially had a pulse after treatment began; they describe praying for a miracle as doctors later said the pulse returned because Charlie was healthy, but a surgeon later declared he was dead. - A final timeline tally is presented: about one minute to load Charlie into the SUV and leave UVU; seven to ten minutes to drive to the hospital; five to ten minutes to get him into the operating room (OR). The hospital staff are described as not prepped in advance, suggesting the need to locate a gurney and assemble the team. The total time from the shooting to the doctor’s declaration of death is estimated as thirty-three to fifty minutes, with thirty-one minutes from being shot to the Jerusalem Post’s report. - The speakers argue that the tight timeline implies an inside source feeding information to the Jerusalem Post and question why Israel, not American outlets, reported the information so quickly, given that this occurred on American soil and involved an American figure. - The speakers repeatedly emphasize the implausibility of such rapid reporting without insider access and challenge the sequencing of information dissemination and the role of Israel in the initial reporting.

Speaker 0 says they spent the night compiling a timeline from every media outlet to show what the media is telling us and what evidence supports that. Key points: 08:23 sighting of a gray Dodge Challenger; 08:29 Robinson arrives at the university campus; 11:49 gait described as restricted; 11:52 on campus toward the Luce Center; 12:15 rifle drop wrapped in a towel, casings engraved; 12:33 shot fired at Charlie Kirk; 12:39 FBI arrives. Reward announced at 10:45; manhunt with 7,000 leads, 11,000 by Sept 12. Discord messages referenced; "limp no longer visible, suggesting that it was faked or a disguise." The speaker alleges Turning Point employees tampered with a crime scene and asks why CCTV footage hasn't been released, inviting viewers to audit the footage.

We have 9 body cam videos showing shots being fired at the Bellagio. The main shooting was at Mandalay Bay, with SWAT involved. Gunshots are heard, sounding like machine guns. Despite reports of a gunman at the Bellagio, the killer was already dead. Police believed SWAT shot him around 11:30. The mistake in identifying the shooter is questioned.

Speaker 0 argues that Saint Anne’s Church in Toronto was not built in 1907–1908 as commonly claimed. He claims there was no documented architectural competition or widely documented evidence that William Howland won a contest, and he asserts there is no proof Howland had formal architectural training, yet the timeline credits him with drawing plans, delivering materials, and completing the structure in less than a year. He describes the building as containing two domed bell towers and being the only Canadian church built in the Byzantine style, with the interior hand-painted murals covering the entire dome, arches, and walls illustrating scenes from the old world. He questions the feasibility of a modern Byzantine-style church being built so quickly and implies the narrative is a “bedtime story for adults.” Speaker 0 notes a fire on 06/09/2024 that gutted the central dome and allegedly destroyed the building and its artifacts, and states they posted about it at the time, predicting that the authorities would be wrong. He then references a November 2025 clip reporting that eighteen months after the fire, police now say it may have been deliberately set, i.e., arson. He highlights that early statements claimed the fire was not suspicious, while later statements describe “evidence of multiple origins of the fire” and that there were audible gasps and tears in the room. He questions why there is zero footage from any angle showing how multiple origins could start simultaneously, and notes there were no suspects, arrests, or final cause reports released publicly. He contends that authorities reclassified the fire as suspected arson in November 2025, but maintains that there has been no resolution or accountability, and suggests the building’s destruction was deliberate. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 discuss the emotional impact and the shift in narrative. They mention that eighteen months after the fire, police say it may have been arson, and that the initial investigation did not appear suspicious. They acknowledge the shock within the congregation and the suggestion that it could have been a deliberate act, while expressing restraint about speculation. They note the absence of footage and the lack of a clear suspect, and they reference a statement from the Diocese of Toronto about evidence of multiple origins of the fire, which contradicts an earlier claim that no one was inside the building when the fire broke out. Speaker 0 questions why such palaces and structures could not be rebuilt quickly, noting that the insurance payout was reportedly around $9,000,000, yet the church now has about $7,000,000 left for a reconstruction project that would require more funding. He contrasts the claimed rapid construction in 1907–1908 with the current prolonged restoration, and suggests that the public narrative around these buildings—built in a single year, with hand-painted murals, and destroyed by arson—should be challenged. He argues that there is no documentation proving the single-year construction story and asserts that the narrative of ancient “palace” architecture is part of a broader pattern worldwide. He ends by speculating about an overarching conspiracy to erase such buildings from the timeline and invites the audience to consider whether those responsible want them fixed or erased.

Speaker 1 argues there are several issues with Brian Harpel’s narrative. First, a records request found 20 911 calls related to Charlie Kirk’s death and the Utah Valley University shooting; none of the calls came from Brian Harpold or anyone on his security staff. 911 does not have any record of their call, which is presented as problem number one. Second, the question is who could have called 911 if the five men in the car describe their actions during the drive to the hospital. Brian Harpole had dropped his phone at UVU, and Frank Turick’s phone was stuck on FaceTime the whole time, according to him. The listener is invited to determine who possibly made the 911 call, when it was made, and why Harpole would claim a call was made if it did not occur. Speaker 2 recounts the drive to the hospital: they ran toward the security team, got into the SUV with Justin driving, Dan in the front with GPS, Rick to the left holding Charlie’s head, and Brian at Charlie’s feet. Charlie is described as so large that the door wouldn’t close, prompting commands to “go, go, go.” The group heads to the hospital, driving without lights or sirens, breaking intersections, and beeping the horn. An ambulance is described as approaching from the venue; they decide to continue. Justin is praised as a trained driver, using exact directions for turns. Rick and the speaker are in the back; Charlie’s left leg is down in the door, preventing the door from closing. The speaker is on their knees doing medical care with Rick and Charlie’s life in danger, shouting and performing CPR. Speaker 3 adds details: they open the back door, drag Charlie in, Justin drives 60–100 mph, Charlie’s tallness prevents the door from closing, and they continue driving. The speaker describes continuing medical care in the car, including stopping to perform CPR, and the door not closing because of Charlie’s size. They reach the hospital, put Charlie on a gurney, and wheel him inside. The staff are described as unaware of their arrival, since they had called 911 but arrived in bloodied condition. The speaker notes his phone came out during unloading, and that he had been FaceTiming his wife and later Spencer during the event. He explains that he left the phone in his back pocket once the shooting occurred. Speaker 1 concludes: Turick’s phone was stuck on FaceTime and did not make any calls; Rick Cutler was praying and cradling Charlie’s head, and holding Harpole to keep him from flying out of the SUV while tending to Charlie. Brian Harpole did not make any call and did not use his own phone since it was left at UVU. Justin, the driver, drove aggressively through intersections, while Dan Flood directed from the passenger seat. The question remains whether any 911 calls were made during the high-speed conveyance, given 911 calls last 30 seconds to 2 minutes, and whether anyone had a free moment to place a call. The speaker questions if a 911 call was made at all, and why Harpole would misremember a 911 call if none occurred. The hospital’s lack of notification suggests the 911 call may not have been successful, or may not have been made, and the speaker commits to continuing the investigation, asking for input on what happened to the missing 911 call.

The speaker analyzes footage of a shooting, alleging it was a staged event using emergency response drill protocols. They identify individuals as "players, controllers, simulators, evaluators, actors, observers," referencing the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). The analysis focuses on the actions of specific people before, during, and after the shooting, claiming their behavior suggests pre-planning and coordination. The speaker questions the authenticity of the blood, the victim's reactions, and the actions of medical personnel. They point out inconsistencies in the narrative, such as changing accounts of where the victim was shot. The speaker suggests the event was designed to further division and manipulate public perception, urging viewers to analyze the footage and share their insights. They state that something "ain't right."

Speaker questions why a medic near Charlie when he was shot isn't seen: "there was a medic walking behind the tent, had to have been five feet from Charlie the second that he got shot? Why didn't we see a medic running around that tent to render aid to Charlie, or did we? Did I miss this? Did somebody else see a medic carrying a big bag of medical supplies and coming over and rendering aid to Charlie, or did we just see dudes jumping over a railing, grabbing some shit, doing some handoffs, and taking off?" "Pretty weird. Check this video out. Let me know what you guys think." The discussion shifts to "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last ten years? Too many." "Ten years? That. Counting or not counting gang violence. Great."

The meeting begins with Speaker 0 welcoming engineers and first responders and expressing hope they will help the people affected by a complex rescue situation. They reference having arrived at the scene and discuss that it looks “very complicated.” Speaker 1 provides factual background about the collapse of the 12-story Champlain Tower South building in Surfside just before 01:30 in the morning on 06/24/2021, noting that ninety eight people died. Speaker 1 says the investigation used aerial photographs, building maintenance records, eyewitness reports, and studies of what was discovered below the ground. Speaker 0 then asks how a café in Beach, Miami relates to the Surfside condo, stating that John McAfee’s residence was at the Surfside condo. Speaker 0 claims that John McAfee was found dead in his prison cell the same day he learned he was being extradited back to the US to stand trial, and that three hours later, at 01:30 in the morning on 06/25/2021, the Surfside condo—described as containing information from McAfee’s residence—was demolished. Speaker 0 says the IDF was sent from Israel to investigate the Surfside condo and asks why the investigation would be conducted “other than to report back that all of the evidence was destroyed.” Speaker 0 recounts traveling to Miami “all the time,” and on one occasion bringing “two hard drives and 20 g’s cash” in a Manila envelope. Speaker 0 says the day after this, in an SUV with bodyguards, John McAfee placed his hand on Speaker 0’s lap, looked him in the eyes, and said that if he died or was found dead for any reason whatsoever, he did not kill himself. Speaker 0 claims McAfee said that if that happened, the two gentlemen who received the cash and the two hard drives were supposed to release information, described as a “dead man switch,” otherwise the information would not be released. Speaker 0 then questions why the two hard drives or the information were not released after the condo was demolished, claiming the condo’s destruction occurred mysteriously and asserting that everyone connected to h I l a r and their “cronies” dies. Speaker 0 concludes by saying that if something happens to them or their account, they may return to mercenary work because it would be “a lot safer,” and ends by stating “Way more to come.”

In this video, the speaker points out that Tony Sanchez, who is also known as Tony Marrero, is the same person. They mention that Tony Marrero was shot four times in the back during the Pulse nightclub shooting. The speaker finds it suspicious that Tony was able to create a GoFundMe account the day after the shooting, considering the severity of his injuries. They also bring up a similar situation involving Robbie Parker, who allegedly had a GoFundMe account set up for his daughter after the Sandy Hook shooting. The speaker suggests that there is evidence of GoFundMe accounts being created before tragic events occur. Overall, they question the authenticity of these accounts and the identities of the victims.

The discussion weaves together claims about advanced predictive technology, space programs, and a supposed timeline war. The speakers reference a “server farm of computers” used to deconstruct images to see future events, naming the Orion cube (the cube) and Looking Glass as the main technologies involved, with Looking Glass also connected to the company or project Looking Glass. One speaker presents themselves as someone with a scientific background in probabilities, noting that in a master’s thesis they “proved Nobel laureate Harry Markowitz wrong” and that their work is in empirical science. They say Grok calculated that certain events are random with a probability of “one to 2.5,” and suggest that while Grok’s calculation isn’t mandatory belief, it can be used to assess likelihood. The discussion then centers on an alleged shooter event and David Wilcock, with the speaker summarizing prior claims about Wilcock’s death and possible manipulation of his actions. They state: “It was an AI dubbed video in English,” and that they speculated Wilcock was murdered to change the timeline, noting that even if he pulled the trigger himself, he “could be manipulated in into it via mind control or radiation, weapons,” and that he talked about personality disorders and dissociation, possibly multiple personalities. The summary then lists numerous coincidences surrounding the event, including: - “UFO whistleblower died of accidental drug overdose” followed by a claim to “forget it” after agreeing to testify to Congress. - Evacuation of JD Vance before Donald Trump and a possible link to Palantir, with a suggestion it could matter to their theory. - Owen Shroyer noting the shooter appeared in an ABC News special. - A prototype for a wheelchair emergency brake being developed, noted as strange. - A shooter appearing in a BlackRock commercial, raising the idea of a “crisis act.” - A circulating photo purportedly showing a shirt with ISF or IDF imagery; the speaker leans toward skepticism about the authenticity of the IDF photo and notes a Palantir connection. - Mario Nofar deleting related posts. - Caroline Levitt predicting “there will be some shots fired,” with debate about whether that was literal or metaphorical. The speakers recount a personal anecdote: someone sitting near Caroline Levitt warned to be safe, after the national anthem, suggesting foreknowledge about danger. They discuss suspicions around foreknowledge, but stress that foreknowledge is not their main point; rather, they present a larger pattern of connections. Key names appear throughout: Henry Martinez, Cole Allen, JD Vance, Palantir, NASA JPL, CHET Propulsion Laboratory, Artemis, Orion, the Orion cube, and the “Law of One” reference to Orion. The shooter is identified by name as Cole Allen, connected to NASA JPL; Henry Martinez is tied to an Orion paper from 2014 and to a 2023 post with timing implications. The group links Palantir’s contract with NASA to the Artemis moon mission and to Orion, suggesting a broader synchronization between the Orion program, Artemis, and predictive capabilities, including a “Looking Glass” concept and a White House press release stating that “Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space.” The overall claim is that a web of coincidences—institutional ties between Palantir, NASA, Orion/Artemis, media appearances, and time-themed postings—points to a coordinated timeline manipulation scenario, with Grok calculating an extremely low probability for these being mere coincidences (less than one in 2.5 to an enormous power). The speakers argue that the only alternative explanation is deliberate timing signaling a timeline war, and they invite further theories while promising a longer video in English with subtitles.

The speakers discuss an alleged shooting incident involving Donald Trump, with claims that a gunman was on a nearby roof during a speech. One witness says he saw a man crawling on the roof with a rifle and alerted police and Secret Service before shots rang out, claiming the Secret Service then "blew his head off." Doubts are raised about whether Trump was actually shot in the ear as reported. One speaker suggests the event was staged, pointing to the position of Trump's body and the lack of blood on his hand after he touched his ear. They claim the blood on Trump's face looked like fake blood and that the Secret Service blocked views to apply it. Another speaker claims the shots came from a Secret Service agent, not the alleged shooter on the roof. They analyze video footage, claiming to identify the sound of gunshots originating from the agent's position. They argue that the lack of blood on Trump's collar proves he wasn't shot.

The speaker claims the famous photograph of classified documents was staged and the documents were placed by the FBI. According to the speaker, Jack Smith admitted in court to mishandling the classified documents and misrepresenting them to the court, which the speaker equates to evidence tampering and lying to the court. The speaker alleges that Trump's lawyers caught the discrepancy between the documents presented and the digitally scanned records. Smith admitted he doesn't know how the tampering happened, allegedly blowing the chain of custody. The speaker also points to prosecutor Jay Bratt's meetings with White House counsel and the National Archives before Smith's appointment. The speaker compares this situation to Crossfire Hurricane, claiming the Obama-Biden administration fabricated evidence and lied to the FISA court to pursue Trump. The speaker suggests the judge in the classified documents case could dismiss it but is waiting to document the situation publicly.

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.

"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.'

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.'

Former President Trump began speaking at 6 PM. Neither the Secret Service nor the security team knew there was a man on the AGR building roof with a gun until gunshots were heard.

"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.

"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."

Authorities claim the shooter's body on the building's roof was staged to look like he shot Trump, but new footage proves otherwise. The video shows the body far left, not close to the ridge as previously portrayed. The New York Times quietly released a documentary shifting the body's position to cover up the shooting angle. The shooter had no clear shot from the building, contradicting the government's narrative of a direct line of sight on Trump's podium. No official explanation has been given for the conflicting angles presented.