reSee.it - 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."

The interview discusses a report by Dr. Dinesh Rao, which includes an autopsy analysis of the speaker's son and seven critical crime scene photographs from his apartment. The photographs reveal extensive blood throughout the apartment, contradicting the official explanation that the son died from a single gunshot wound to the head. This suggests he was not fatally injured when the bleeding occurred. Additionally, a tuft of hair identified as a wig, not belonging to the son, was found with blood on it. The speaker asserts that these findings indicate the death was a homicide, not a suicide.

In the case of AI whistleblower Sutier Balaji's death, the theory suggests he was attacked in a hotel bathroom. His head was slammed into the sink, causing blood spatters, while he was listening to music and flossing his teeth, indicating he was not suicidal. After being shot between the eyes, he crawled, leaving blood pools along the way. A piece of his hair found near the door suggests foul play, as it wouldn’t have moved there if he had shot himself. The theory posits that the motive for his murder was related to valuable intellectual property linked to AI, potentially worth billions, exchanged among individuals on a camping trip.

I have analyzed the photos of Sushir Balaji's last moments, which were shared with me by his family. They requested that I do not publish the images but allowed me to share them with trusted individuals to verify the details. The evidence suggests he was surprised and shot in the bathroom, with three distinct blood pools indicating he attempted to crawl away after being shot. The trajectory of the bullet appears to be downward, and there are signs of struggle as he reached for the door. I aim to have a blood expert analyze the blood patterns to confirm these findings. This case has gained attention, particularly from Elon Musk, who has tweeted about it multiple times.

Photos taken by New York's Office of Chief Medical Examiner raised more questions than they answer. Epstein's body was removed before investigators arrived, and Epstein's cell, experts say, should have been treated as a crime scene. Epstein's death was quickly ruled a suicide. There are 90 photos in all showing a cell strewn with blankets and strips of fabric tied to the bed and window grate. Items moved around including a mattress which is seen on the floor in an earlier photo but appears on the bed in a later one. If that's accurate, the scene had been disturbed hours before FBI investigators arrived. Investigators also found several possible nooses but did not conclusively identify the one that killed him. This looks like they took it at face value that this was a suicide.

We still have, basically confirmation he got shot. His right, exit out the left. If I had to guess, I would say he got hit at the base of the skull. He didn't die from blood loss. He died instantly which would mean it either hit spinal or the base of the base of the brain or either some some portion of the brain that would take everything out. So, what I'm saying is the FBI is lying. This is most likely entry somewhere in this vicinity somewhere in this vicinity, it hits bone and it projects itself outward through the neck. Keep your eye on this space here where the red circle is as the next clip plays.

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 discussion centers on serious allegations involving a programmer who accused OpenAI of stealing people’s work and not paying them. The group notes that this programmer was murdered, with several participants presenting conflicting views on his death. Speaker 1 states that it was a great tragedy and that the programmer committed suicide, expressing a strong belief that it was suicide. In contrast, Speaker 0 describes the situation as clearly a murder, citing multiple troubling details and offering their personal conclusion that the programmer was killed. There is also any emphasis on the programmer’s public exposure. Speaker 2 notes that the programmer had been named four days earlier in the New York Times lawsuit and had just done an expose for the New York Times on how copyright issues with OpenAI were involved, specifically on the twenty-sixth, highlighting timing as very odd. The conversation touches on surveillance and investigative details. Speaker 3 claims there were multiple investigations and two police reports, but asserts that only one police report has been seen, alleging that in the first report the writer changed it, and that this is the second report; they claim the only one seen is the second report. The narrative then returns to the stated belief that the programmer was murdered. Speaker 0 lists signs of foul play: a struggle, surveillance camera footage, and wires cut. They detail that the programmer had just ordered takeout, had returned from a vacation with friends on Catalina Island, and that there was no indication of suicide. They note there was no note and no observed behavior suggesting suicide, and that the programmer was found dead with blood in multiple rooms, arguing that these factors make murder seem obvious. The question of whether authorities have been consulted is raised, with Speaker 0 asking if the authorities have been talked to about it. Throughout, Speaker 1 reiterates their belief in suicide by asking, “Do you think he committed suicide? I really do,” maintaining that position even after the murder narrative is presented. Speaker 1 confirms they have not discussed the matter with the authorities.

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

In the case of the AI whistleblower's death, the theory suggests he was attacked in a hotel bathroom. His head was slammed into the sink, causing blood spatters, and he was shot between the eyes at close range. Despite the injury, he attempted to crawl away, leaving a trail of blood. A piece of hair found near the door indicates foul play, as it seems unlikely a suicidal person would have hair displaced in that manner. The attacker may have used a red bag to grab the victim's hair, leading to blood spatter as they manipulated him. The motive appears to be related to valuable intellectual property linked to a high-stakes AI startup, potentially worth billions.

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

A programmer claimed OpenAI was stealing people’s stuff and not paying them, and then he was murdered. One speaker says, “I really do” think it was suicide and notes it as a tragedy; he knew the person. The other insists it looked like murder, pointing to a gun purchase, a medical record, and argues there was a sign of a struggle. They discuss the slain man’s activities—he had just ordered takeout, returned from a Catalina Island vacation, and there was blood in two rooms with no suicide note. The mother claims he was murdered on your orders. They ask why authorities in San Francisco haven’t fully investigated beyond calling it a suicide and mention contacting Ro Khanna, with no result. The second set of details cites how the bullet entered him, a path through the room, a wig in the room that wasn’t his, and a DoorDash order, challenging the suicide claim.

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

The discussion highlights inconsistencies at Amy’s scene: she was right-handed, but the gun was found on the left side of her body. Confidential sources spoke on the record to other journalists, noting heavy intelligence involvement on the scene. No coroner report or autopsy has been released yet, though it’s expected to be explored during the forthcoming investigation. As Amy’s story gained public attention, Daily Mail headlines were described as misleading, contributing to a broader media spread that included CNN and Fox News. A set of texts from a man named Sam, which have since been erased, are introduced for context. One post from Sam presenting Amy’s messages describes death threats Amy had received daily for her recent work, claiming surveillance after she “crossed some line” with her independently developed theory. She mentions leaving a voice note on a hacked phone about “super, heedy shit” she had figured out, followed by ongoing “daily death threats.” She asserts she did not kill herself, telling people close to her over the past few days that it is “simply impossible to take them all out,” and asks what can be told about Sam and these texts, noting there are more. Speaker 0 explains that Sam Reid was Amy’s business partner in the Geometric Energy Corporation (GEC), formed with Sam and Chantel, and that Sam was a very close friend of Amy. The texts indicate Amy was updating him about what happened to him as well; reading the streams reveals Sam and Amy were both affected. Sam is portrayed as someone Amy relied on and trusted as a best friend, with whom she shared substantial history and company involvement. Following this, it’s noted that Sam removed the tweets, leading to questions about possible consequences for him. The speaker reflects on misleading headlines, citing an example that stated, “eleventh scientists found dead,” which mischaracterizes the situation since Amy died four years ago. The speaker refrains from speculating on Sam Reid’s motives for deleting the texts, stating they do not know him personally and that it wouldn’t be fair to speculate about his motivations. The core point remains: Sam deleted the texts, which is considered noteworthy. Fact of the matter remains that Sam erased the texts, and this action is highlighted within the discussion.

The autopsy showed the bullet was fired at a downward angle, indicating someone else shot him while he was sitting down. The speaker and her husband plan to create a virtual reality video for court to demonstrate what happened. The victim had another head injury, evidenced by a fallen dustbin, toothpick, and blood in the sink around 10:10 PM, his last browser history. The speaker believes he was attacked from behind while brushing his teeth, possibly electrocuted or paralyzed, then held up and shot. The speaker believes the gunshot wound was not the cause of death because the bullet didn't touch the brain, only causing unconsciousness. She suspects he may have been suffocated. The speaker called the apartment at 12:15 PM on the 23rd, and it rang once before going to voicemail, leading her to believe the killers were still there. She suggests using geofencing to determine who was at the complex and calls for a thorough investigation.

The conversation centers on a highly unusual interview in which Tucker discusses a whistleblower connected to a major AI company and his reported death. The participants note that the whistleblower, identified by name as Jamie, allegedly committed suicide, but there are strong indications that some people believe he was murdered. Sam Altman is specifically addressed in the exchange, with Tucker asking if Altman is being accused; Altman responds, and the discussion emphasizes that the speakers think someone killed him rather than it being a straightforward suicide. Key points raised include: - The case has striking inconsistencies: no suicide note has been found, and Jamie’s parents believe he was murdered. - Investigative details mentioned as evidence of foul play include blood in two rooms, wires to a security camera that were cut, and someone’s wig found in the room. - There is also mention that Jamie ordered DoorDash right before the alleged suicide, which the speakers view as unusual and suggestive of a rapid change in mindset. - The discussion notes that the parents have publicly stated their belief in homicide and have urged a proper investigation rather than a drop of the case. - The possibility of an investigation is framed as necessary, with questions about why a proper inquiry should not be pursued given the alleged signs. - The exchange questions Altman’s reaction to the murder accusation, suggesting his response appeared bizarre or unconvincing to some listeners; one speaker posits Altman might simply be socially awkward, while others feel he would be more plainly irate and insistent on a thorough investigation if he were not connected to the case. - It is stated that Jamie’s family has sued the building’s landlord, alleging a cover-up related to his death. Reported details include packages disappearing from the San Francisco building and claimed safeguarding failures by the landlord and management. - Additional context acknowledges the emotional toll on Jamie’s parents, noting their grief and the potential impact on their beliefs about what happened. Overall, the discussion presents a narrative of a whistleblower’s controversial death with multiple seemingly contradictory clues (no suicide note, blood in two rooms, a cut security camera wire, a wig, and a late-night DoorDash order) and a call for a proper investigation, while also touching on the emotional strain experienced by the family and the implications of the landlord-related lawsuit.

Following an assassination attempt on Trump, questions remain unanswered, such as why the shooter's house was professionally scrubbed, leaving no digital or physical footprint. Despite being filmed with a rangefinder before the event and CNN streaming the rally live, there was no formal report or press conferences detailing the investigation. The Secret Service's explanation for restricting roof access also seemed illogical. The possibility of a coordinated assassination attempt is considered, where the shooter would be eliminated post-attack, mirroring a Lee Harvey Oswald scenario. The shooter's willingness to die suggests radicalization or manipulation. The presence of multiple phones and a phone potentially linked to the FBI traveling to the shooter's residence raises further suspicion. The lack of personal items in the house, including cutlery, adds to the mystery. The potential use of psychotropic drugs, hypnosis, and mind control, reminiscent of MK Ultra, is also discussed.

CCTV footage shows the individual alone, not communicating or mingling with anyone. He was writing the last days of his life on his own terms, according to his own plan. This is obvious now with the benefit of hindsight.

In the short run, he agrees that rather than send the footage, he will get onto a FaceTime call with me, and he will show me the footage on his computer. He did that, and I watched the footage. First and foremost, there was nothing gory about this shot at all. There's nothing gory about this footage from the back. The thing that really stood out to me, and I just kept asking him to replay it over and over and over again, is that there's no blood. There's no blood from the back. So I think a lot of people were wondering whether or not that bullet pierced and went out to the back. I think I vaguely even remember. And Skyler, you can maybe live look this up. I don't understand that. If I'm not seeing any blood, what what are we to take from that?

Hello, everyone. I analyzed the blood evidence from the scene, which closely matched the AI's findings. I noted blood from a nosebleed and spatter indicating a violent impact with the sink. This case is gaining significant media attention in India, likening the individual to a heroic figure akin to Steve Jobs. The implications of AI in this situation are profound, as it could reshape industries and influence future developments. The stolen backup drive holds critical information that could determine the next decade's technological landscape. This isn't just a tragic event; it's a pivotal moment in AI's evolution, affecting everyone globally. The analysis of the blood spatter suggests foul play, contradicting any narrative of suicide. This story will continue to unfold, revealing deeper connections and consequences in the tech world. Thank you for joining me.

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

The coroner's office revealed that the individual had a gunshot wound to the head before the vehicle exploded. One of the handguns was located at his feet inside the vehicle.

George Webb is in San Francisco with the parents of Sichir Balaji, who was murdered. They visited the crime scene, noting signs of a struggle, including blood by the sink and evidence that he was attacked from behind while using earbuds. It appears he tried to escape, crawling toward the door for help. His belongings were scattered, suggesting someone searched for a thumb drive he owned. The parents are awaiting access to his phone and laptop for evidence. They plan to geofence the area for IP addresses related to the crime. Despite presenting evidence, authorities are labeling it a suicide and withholding police and autopsy reports. The parents seek justice for their son.

The family of Suchir Balaji alleges his death was not a suicide, but a murder orchestrated to silence him. They claim the initial investigation was botched, evidence was mishandled, and key CCTV footage was missing. They hired experts who found a fractured cheekbone, blood outside the bathroom inconsistent with a self-inflicted gunshot, and no back spatter on his hands. Balaji was allegedly a whistleblower providing data for the New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, potentially exposing copyright violations. The family believes OpenAI targeted him, especially after they selected him as a custodian witness shortly before his death. They point to a high GHB level in his toxicology report, despite him not being a regular drinker, and a ransacked apartment as evidence he was interrogated before his death. The family accuses the medical examiner of failing to follow standard autopsy protocols and concealing evidence. They are filing a complaint and seeking FBI intervention, hoping to expose corruption and protect other whistleblowers. They believe Balaji's death was intended to silence others in the tech industry and are fighting for accountability and systemic change.