TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker highlights clips with a red circle, saying, "holy shit, that is the bullet. It matches the exit wound, it also matches the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." He adds, "in that video you can see the same what appears to be the bullet coming down and it does line up with the actual gunshot itself," and, "you can see something go down into the back right hand side of, of Charlie." Using Google Earth, he states, "his tent being set up in the middle of that triangle area would appear that the shooter was up here somewhere. That's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "It all makes sense to me, pretty crazy." He argues location: "rooftop access there but there's also a staircase down in the little alley there in that little nook so it's to me, it's pretty obvious that the shooter was was most likely, here somewhere." "Somewhere on those stairs would be my tip, and if the FBI aren't looking there, I don't know why."

Zeb Boykin hosts Let's Talk About It and keeps this brief. He, a marine scout sniper who taught ballistics, states "the FBI lies to us" and urges starting with no preconceived notions. The video centers on ballistics. He analyzes four of nine camera angles, then returns to the first. Camera angle one shows a bullet near Charlie Kirk; camera two shows an exit wound in the neck and the earpiece flying off as the shockwave pulls the mic; camera three resembles the view. He explains how the earpiece and cord interact with the shirt, discusses a temporary cavity, and estimates a small-caliber round rather than a rifle. He disputes a body-armor shot, rejects a 'reflection' claim, and argues the shooter cannot be on the roof. He says there is a single shooter and pledges follow-up or live coverage; "The FBI is lying to you."

- "earliest it was 12:22 that the individual ran across, set up, took the shots." - "The metadata begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." - "I saw the shots. I had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out." - "this person looked to him like a foreign agent." - "this person was dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask." - "this is the wrong person. I observed this person with my eyes. You have the complete wrong description." - "the gun that the FBI found was not the gun that he saw, that the gun that he saw was smaller."

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."

A gun-experienced trainer described the FBI timeline as inconsistent: “the shooter dropped onto Dhruv at 12:15. Didn’t make sense to him. He said earliest it was 12:22 that the individual ran across, set up, took the shots.” He noted the metadata begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, “the very minute that Charlie gets shot,” and that he had “just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out.” He described the shooter as “dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask,” and to him, the person “looked to him like a foreign agent” and a “highly trained assassin.” After George Zinn got arrested, he ran to campus and said, “this is the wrong person … the complete wrong description.” The real description was “wearing tactical gear” and “obviously young” who “sprinted back after taking the shot.” He said the “now infamous veteran's shirt with the American flag on it and some jeans” wasn’t accurate. He said the gun FBI found was not the gun that he saw; “the gun that he saw was smaller.” He texted: “watching the video of the impact… the assassin may have used a 10 or 20 round magazine” and guessed “Hornady V Max” or similar “lightweight two twenty three bullet” designed for rapid expansion; copper shards rather than one large copper coated lead slug.

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

An experienced firearms trainer said the FBI saying that the shooter dropped onto Dhruv at 12:15 didn’t make sense to him; he believed the earliest time was 12:22 when the shooter ran across, set up, and fired. He shared metadata showing 12:22–12:23, the minute Charlie is shot, and said he had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out. He described the shooter as dressed in tactical gear and wearing a face mask, and, to him, looked like a foreign agent—highly trained—unlike the widely circulated jeans description. After George Zinn’s arrest, he ran to someone on campus and said, this is the wrong person. He noted the gun FBI found was not the gun that he saw; the gun he saw was smaller. "watching the video of the impact, hearing the sharp crack instead of a big hunting rifle's boom, and seeing what looked like a shorter rifle platform, albeit with the absence of the shape of a standard 30 round magazine, the assassin may have used a 10 or 20 round magazine only expecting to shoot once or twice. I would guess that he was shot with a Hornady V Max or similar lightweight two twenty three bullet designed for very rapid expansion." "Of course, I don't have access to any autopsy reports like you might, but if they found small shards of copper rather than one large copper coated lead slug, that's the gun and bullet I would expect was used."

This footage proved very difficult to track down. Aaron also has a Chicago number. Neither of them are students of UVU. One of them said he was a student at BYU, which is Brigham Young University. The metadata begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot. I watched him sprint back after taking the shot. I saw this with my own two eyes. the gun that the FBI found was not the gun that he saw. the assassin may have used a 10 or 20 round magazine only expecting to shoot once or twice.

A firearms trainer questions the FBI timeline: "the shooter dropped onto the roof at 12:15" and notes the earliest timeline as "12:22 ... the shots." He cites metadata "begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot," and says he "had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out." He describes the shooter as "dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask" and says he looked "like a foreign agent." After George Zinn's arrest, he told campus, "this is the wrong person" and that "the person you're looking for is wearing tactical gear and is obviously young"—a description that "never made its way out" while the public saw "the now infamous, veteran's shirt with the American flag on it and some jeans." He claims the gun FBI found was not the gun he saw; "the gun that he saw was smaller." He texted: "watching the video of the impact ... the assassin may have used a 10 or 20 round magazine ..." "I would guess that he was shot with a Hornady VMAX or similar lightweight two twenty three bullet designed for very rapid expansion. If they found small shards of copper rather than one large copper coated lead slug, that's the gun and bullet I would expect was used."

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

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.”

"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."

A "straight shooter" with gun training said he observed discrepancies in the FBI timeline. He notes the FBI said the shooter "dropped onto the roof at 12:15," but that the earliest timing was "12:22 that the individual ran across, set up, took the shots." He adds that metadata "begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot," and that he "had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out." He says the later description was wrong: "not the description that the entire world received less than twenty four hours later of this person, Tyler Robinson, wearing jeans." Instead, "this person was dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask" and "looked to him like a foreign agent." He recalls saying, "this is the wrong person." The gun FBI found was "not the gun that he saw"—"the gun that he saw was smaller." A text describes "a sharp crack" and "shorter rifle platform" with "a 10 or 20 round magazine" and "Hornady V Max or similar lightweight two twenty three bullet designed for very rapid expansion." If copper shards were found, "that's the gun and bullet I would expect was used."

A training guns expert said the FBI claim "the shooter dropped onto Dhruv at 12:15" didn't make sense; he asserted "earliest it was 12:22 that the individual ran across, set up, took the shots," and metadata "begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the minute that Charlie gets shot." He said "I saw the shots. I had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out," and that the shooter "looked to him like a foreign agent," "dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask," "highly trained." After George Zinn's arrest, he told campus "this is the wrong person" and that the person "wearing tactical gear" and "obviously young" "sprinted back after taking the shot," a description "never made its way out." He said "the gun FBI found was not the gun that he saw"—"the gun that he saw was smaller." Text: "watching the video of the impact, hearing the sharp crack..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"This is a CIA Stinger 22 magnum pin gun inside a camera, and that telephoto lens has a suppressor silencer. And it's literally the smoking gun." "They are into espionage, and they do that kind of thing just like The United States. Google it." "Seventeen seconds earlier, he was using the viewfinder, faking it to take pictures." "The bullet's traveling faster than the sun." "The shooter behind Charlie with the camera gun is scouting the area to see Charlie's mannerism and what angle to shoot the bullet." "The backpack with the dangling straps, but that doesn't matter because he tries to hide all that in a black Chrysler minivan Pacifica with stock rims." "The signal guy; puts the radio to his mouth and gets the team working." "There were two shooters: one with a silencer and one with a big bang to avoid any conspiracy." "Charlie had two wounds: one from the front, and another from his right into the lower part of the skull." "UVU Hall Of Flags." "The shooter on the roof had the silencer; the one behind Charlie with the camera gun is scouting." "Turning Point stated that when they go live, this they didn't go live. They always have four k cameras. On this day, they only had three." "greatest1command.com" "Yl Relevance."