reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

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."

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."

Zeb Boykin introduces himself as a Marine scout sniper and says he will keep the video short. He asserts, "the FBI lies to us" and urges evaluating claims without preconceived notions, focusing on ballistics. He identifies nine camera angles and uses four (Cam1–Cam4) to analyze footage frame by frame. He argues a bullet is visible before it hits Charlie Kirk, suggesting the shot came from the right/front and that the earpiece and cord movement shows a mic being pulled by a shockwave, not body armor. He describes an exit wound in the neck and an entry wound that wouldn’t produce the observed damage, estimating calibers around nine millimeter or .38, not 30-06. He discusses muzzle-flash frame, earpiece trajectory, and a Cam4 reflection claim, concluding, "This cannot happen if the shooter is shooting on the roof straight on," and "The FBI is lying to you."

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.”

Lionel Nation (Speaker 1) says he has no knowledge of who Tyler Robinson is and is neutral, but the case sounded odd and is now “imploding” in his view. He outlines two key points: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk with malice, premeditation, and by a rifle or some weapon, and the jury will weigh the evidence, including a confession to the parents and the gun. He questions the confession to the parents, suggesting it may be shaky because the police or others may have pressured a turn-in. He notes a Discord message confession from Tyler and a “gay lover” with a fuzzy hat, calling it the strangest confession ever, and he speculates about whether the confession was really an attempt to turn himself in due to fear of police action, rather than a true admission. He discusses how the indictment might describe the parents hearing the confession on TV or from a sheriff’s friend, calling that portion “sloppy” and speculating about whether it actually came from Tyler’s own mouth. He then examines the physical evidence: the Mauser 98 rifle in 30-06, the bullet not matching, and a lint brush analogy to illustrate a mismatch. He says the bullet “doesn’t match,” and wonders how this connects to the rifle; he admits uncertainty about the connection. He references gunshot residue (GSR) testing and notes questions about whether any GSR test was conducted on Tyler, and whether the rifle was fired. He mentions the rifle being found after dogs searched and suggests it could have been planted, or that it wouldn’t show residue if not fired. He stresses that the defense argues the government has to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that if the bullet, rifle, or DNA evidence is not connected or if there is suppression of evidence, it could undermine the case. Speaker 0 asks about whether the confession is hearsay, and Speaker 1 responds that confessions can be an exception to the hearsay rule because they are admissions, though the indictment may not contain the exact confession. He notes the indictment is bare bones and later details would come out in discovery and deposition, including what the parents actually said. He considers whether the parents’ statements could be contested or reinterpreted, or whether they would claim they misunderstood what Tyler said or were influenced. They discuss the possibility of suppressing the rifle and the confession and how that would impact the case, noting the jury’s potential reaction if the only evidence is a vague confession to parents and an unreliable weapon. Speaker 1 jests about bringing expert witnesses, including a Marine sniper, to replicate the shooting and challenge the narrative, and about medical examiner reports and the possibility that the case could be dismissed if key pieces are not admissible. They contemplate the broader implications: if the government quits the case in the interest of justice, or if deeper investigations or disclosures reveal additional suspects or motivations. They reference Joe Kent’s claim that investigators were hindered, and speculate about the roles of public figures like Cash Patel and Erica Kirk, with Speaker 1 asserting that Erica Kirk’s testimony and role could be pivotal or contested. He contemplates that the case might extend beyond the courtroom into public discourse, including TPUSA involvement and community reactions, and emphasizes that the truth will come from a combination of courtroom proceedings and crowdsourced investigation. Ultimately, Speaker 1 reiterates that the question is whether Tyler Robinson can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if any link in the chain—confession, rifle, GSR, or other evidence—is not solid, the case could fail. They plan to monitor developments, including the medical examiner’s report, which Speaker 0 notes will likely be released, and suggest that the coming revelations could shape the narrative, for better or worse.

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.

"A bullet cartridge." "Right there." "It's been thrown over there, setting the scene for something that would be possibly coming our way to be part of this whole insurrection rubbish?" "Because how all in the same scene or magazine, whatever you wanna call it, gets thrown and then conveniently in the same scene, the policeman drops his weapon on the ground." "So you got the the cartridge, and you got the weapon." "Right there, ladies and gentlemen. There's the weapon, and there is the cartridge." "Right here, weapon and cartridge." "Can you see?" "Now, ladies and gentlemen, it's the finer details we need to pay attention to."

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

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

Zeb Boykin analyzes a shooting using four of nine camera angles, noting “there’s nine camera angles” and “we’re only gonna use four of them” before revisiting camera1. He states “the FBI lies to us” and limits discussion to ballistics. He claims a frame before impact shows the “bullet” at Charlie Kirk, and in camera2 “an exit wound in the neck” with “the earpiece” dislodged and “the cord pulling the shirt” as the mic is drawn by the shockwave. He says “the earpiece is not body armor” and dismisses a “reflection” in camera4. He mentions a possible muzzle flash (grainy) and discusses a temporary cavity, yaw, and bullet tumbling. He estimates a smaller caliber, possibly nine millimeter, and suggests a base-of-skull hit causing instantaneous incapacitation, not a rifle. He concludes, “The FBI is lying to you,” and, “This cannot happen if the shooter is shooting on the roof straight on.”

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."

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

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.

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.

The speaker analyzes the iconic photo and argues that a bullet cannot be captured frame-by-frame at 30 frames per second; at 1,500–3,000 feet per second, a single frame would show the bullet moving about 45 feet, producing only a streak, not a frozen dot. He rejects claims of a bullet frozen in mid-air. Regarding the moment near the neck, he says there was no blood and that the second of impact could have been a necklace exploding, not an earpiece, and questions how a chain could snap and blow back over the ears. He notes camera shutter speeds of 1/164,000th or 1/120,000th of a second and argues a NYT photographer would have needed such settings to capture the moment, which he sees as improbably random. He concludes no one caught a bullet moving in Charlie Kirk’s vicinity.

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.

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.

"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."

The speaker argues it's not clear the shooter fled the scene with a weapon, possibly downplaying it as a concealed firearm. He suggests the shooter could have had a short-barreled AR-15 broken down to fit a bag, raising questions about how the gun ended up and was later found in the woods. If the shooter didn’t leave with a weapon, one possibility is the weapon was left at the scene; another is that the person wasn’t the shooter. The speaker acknowledges conspiracy theories and distinguishes personal uncertainty from certainty, referencing the FBI’s account of sneaking a 30-06 rifle in his pants, taking the shot, not leaving with it, and then retrieving it hours later. He wonders why someone would run into the woods and asks where the actual gun is, and whether a different rifle in the woods was misattributed.

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.