TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker says they have a confirmed source about Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest and notes his friend's dad is a surgeon. "Carly Carly Trik arrived. He was hit in the chest, which is what we saw. It caved in part of his chest." "The bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck." "There was no side shooter, guys." "The main shooter we're looking at came from the front, and I don't think it was that Tyler dude." "I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof." He states: "Look at all this stuff that the FBI has told us." He adds: "I personally think that there is somebody much farther back than that. I think that dude on the roof is a patsy." He concludes: "Please do not send me any more videos of any other angles of this being a side shooter."

We saw a man crawling on a roof with a rifle while Trump was speaking. We alerted the police and Secret Service, but they seemed unaware. Eventually, the man was shot by the Secret Service. The speaker is certain the shots came from the man on the roof.

Chemical munitions were deployed, and flashbangs were used against the speakers. There was a request for assistance near an ice cream tower. The speaker, who has custody of 44,000 hours of videos, witnessed acts of violence against police officers that were brutal and ugly. The officers did what they had to do. However, another speaker claims that if the police hadn't used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the incident wouldn't have occurred. They argue that it was a peaceful protest and deny any aggression towards the officers. The situation escalated when the police started firing without provocation.

Candace seeks help identifying Cooper Brown, the person who shoved a microphone away from a speaker at Utah Valley University's Charlie Kirk event. Brown later appeared on Fox News as eyewitness, described as a Leadership Institute volunteer who was 'feet away from Charlie' when the shot rang out and who 'held the microphone' during the event. Witnesses who 'heard multiple shots' were not given mainstream-media interviews; a viral clip shows a witness describing a gunshot and a man slumping, with skepticism about the shooter's origin. The video subject is clarified as not Andrew Colvert of Turning Point USA, and not a TPUSA employee or UVU student; instead, he is a volunteer connected to a TPUSA event, prompting questions about his background, the use of volunteers to manage microphones, and why he spoke to Fox News. Speaker asks for information from Southern New Hampshire University folks who might know Cooper Brown.

"100% proof that Ashley Babbitt was not shot." Before that, I wanna give credit to where credit is due. I wanna thank Jesus Christ, the lord and savior. It was his spirit, his spirit of truth that revealed to my heart that something was off. So I spent a lot of time analyzing the videos and check this out. So this is John Sullivan's footage and we're gonna see the gun. Of course, it's gonna make that quick movement, but also look at where it's shooting. It's shooting really low in comparison to Ashley Babbitt's neck. But then look in the upper right hand corner, and you're gonna see something move. You see that? See, we get the rare opportunity of seeing the travel of the bullet. So let's go back to this scene. This is a video clip from main mainstream media. We see Helmet Boy bashing the windows. He's gonna head over to the final window and the one that must have been installed with thumbtacks because he knocks it out in one shot. Oh, boy. But look at the wooden window trim. This is what's gonna get hit by the pathway of the bullet. Watch this. Did you see that? We got a clear shot of which way the bullet actually went after it left the gun. You may be thinking, well, it hit the window trim and then it hit Ashley Babbitt. That could happen if the shooter was shooting from in front of Ashley, but the shooter is shooting from the side of Ashley. So what we got is actually a really clear shot that Ashley Babbitt did not get shot by that bullet.

"how did this guy know to move to that exact location?" "There was also a man that was arrested in a parking lot with an airsoft rifle." "that crazy guy screaming that he was basically a distraction?" "the best way to tell a difference between people is to look at their ear." "the ear does not is a bit different to the one we've seen of of photos of Tyler, old photos Tyler." "it's not obvious, but we don't have any positive proof here that there is a rifle in this video at all." "how did he get a rifle up on the roof?" "it's not a takedown model." "the bulge in his pocket" "12:23:34" "potato cam footage" "I didn't shoot him, I didn't do anything, I swear guys." "rifle was pre positioned at some period in time, and that he then was able to pick it off the property, and because he knew he couldn't walk all the way across, and then stash it like that as he was moving into position finally." "there's so many different people that are talking about this and it hasn't died yet." "a Twitter post the day before and ended up sharing it, the same day within hours of when Charlie Kirk got shot, that said he was attending school there, he said something very big was gonna happen the next day"

The speaker asserts a 100% proof that Ashley Babbitt was not shot and begins by giving credit to Jesus Christ, stating that “his spirit, his spirit of truth that revealed to my heart that something was off.” They claim to have spent a lot of time analyzing the videos. The speaker references John Sullivan’s footage and claims that “the gun” makes a quick movement, and that it is shooting “really low in comparison to Ashley Babbitt's neck.” They point to the upper right-hand corner of the frame, asserting that “you’ll see something move,” and claim that “we get the rare opportunity of seeing the travel of the bullet.” Returning to a scene from mainstream media, the speaker describes Helmet Boy bashing the windows and moving toward the final window—“the one that must have been installed with thumbtacks because he knocks it out in one shot.” They observe the wooden window trim and propose that it will be hit by the pathway of the bullet, asking the audience to watch and stating, “Did you see that?” The speaker claims to have obtained “a clear shot of which way the bullet actually went after it left the gun.” They state that viewers might think the bullet hit the window trim and then Ashley Babbitt, which they argue could happen if the shooter were in front of Ashley, but claim instead that “the shooter is shooting from the side of Ashley.” Consequently, they declare that what they have shown provides “a really clear shot that Ashley Babbitt did not get shot by that bullet.”

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "01/06/2021, the media propaganda machine fed us a story that shapes the narrative of insurrection." "They intentionally left out some key details." "There's an entire timeline that you haven't seen and it tells a different story." "They're going into the capital, I think." "It looks like they got sniper rifles." "We want to petition our government for the redress of grievances." "Notice the smoke from the sniper's barrel?" "What do you think that means?" "This is where Joshua Black is shot in the face." "He never saw it coming." "The agitator Landon Copeland admitted to being a member of Antifa just after being sentenced for his involvement." "They're trying to save this guy's life right now."

Kash Patel said the FBI was not there to create the chaos; "they were there for crowd control, and they came later." He asks, "Then why in the hell were they dressed up as MAGA? You would come there over force trying to calm the crowd in uniform, not undercover, helping breaking down." The discussion questions "Where is the gun according to the FBI in this video? ... we don't see anything." The speaker notes Patel dodges questions, saying, "This is him trying to dodge a question." They cite "DNA on towel" and "DNA on a screwdriver that was found on the rooftop" but say "he never says DNA on the rifle." They point to UVU footage being grainy despite extensive cameras, saying "the best footage we get is this grainy footage here that we have seen a million times." They demand receipts, argue about "manipulation" and "assets, funding, chaos, and control," claim "Most of these people ain't even in The US" and link to "the same people involved with Epstein," closing with "frosty. Stay strapped. Stay dangerous."

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.'

Speaker 0: Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. Speaker 1: If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech. And we're not gonna let that be justified.

We are here live at Utah Valley University. There's been a shooting at the Charlie Kirk Turning Point USA event. Charlie Kirk got shot in the neck is what my kid is saying. I heard a shot... there was blood protruding from his neck or his head about six inches or more, literally gushing out. there was blood spray. The police said it could have come from up on the roof, but they arrested a guy up down right in front of Charlie. Active crime scene. Keep they're telling everybody to get out of here. There was blood coming from the left side of his neck down his shirt, and he slumped over. There might be a guy on the roof. We also don't condone Hamas. We think that genocide's wrong on both sides. My sign says free Palestine, love one another. Free Palestine, there's a genocide.

Speaker discusses Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest, citing a confirmed source and a message on X: 'Carly Carly Trik arrived.' He says 'he was hit in the chest, which is what we saw' and that 'the bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck.' He asserts 'There was no side shooter' and that 'The main shooter we're looking at came from the front' and 'I don't think it was that Tyler dude' and 'I think that Tyler dude is a patsy' and 'I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof.' He labels counter theories as 'slop' and urges focus on CCTV footages, noting 'the FBI has told us' and suggesting the body was moved, asking 'Is anybody buying this?' He concludes 'I think that there is somebody much farther back than that' and 'the dude on the roof is a patsy.'

Candace asks for help identifying Cooper Brown, the kid who shoved the microphone away from a speaker, who later appeared on Fox News. He’s described as a PR guy and a political expert, and as 'magically a ghost online, and nobody can find him.' The video notes witnesses insisting multiple shots were heard, including a man shoved as he tried to speak. He says: 'I was standing from probably the third row in the bottom. I saw hit I heard the shot ring out. I looked to my left, and I looked over to my right. I saw him slump over in his chair forward.' The shover is described as not a Turning Point USA employee or UVU student, but a volunteer who later spoke to Fox News. The speaker questions Cooper’s identity and seeks answers from Turning Point USA and asks for information from Southern New Hampshire University contacts.

Speaker 0 describes a scene outside their front porch where a protester, a woman, blocked traffic with her car. She parked perpendicularly, and ICE had six or seven vehicles with multiple officers. The protester’s car blocked the road, preventing passage for the convoy. ICE officers yelled at her to move and then became aggressive, approaching her driver’s side door and attempting to open it. The woman then began to reverse as she appeared frightened. An officer leaned across in front of the vehicle and shot the woman point-blank in the face, with about three or four shots fired. The woman’s foot pressed the gas, she tried to escape, hit a telephone pole, and crashed into several cars. Speaker 0 notes there were perhaps only about 10 protesters, but many ICE agents and six to seven vehicles, each with multiple officers. The scene was dispersed yet extremely chaotic, and it seemed the ICE agents did not have a plan or were unprepared. The woman was slumped over in the car. A neighbor, who identified as a physician, offered to take vitals, ask for a heartbeat, and request CPR, but was told to back away and that medics were on the way, a process that took about fifteen minutes. In that interval, it’s implied she may have deceased, and no lifesaving measures were attempted. Speaker 1 asks about how the secretary of Homeland Security and the president characterized the incident, labeling it a domestic terrorist attack, a ramming attack, and an attempt to kill or run over ICE agents. Speaker 0 responds that this characterization is the only reason they are there, and they would prefer not to speak, but they believed the incident would be misconstrued as self-defense. They insist the event was totally preventable and absolutely unnecessary, distinguishing it from self-defense. Overall, the account presents a chaotic confrontation between a small group of protesters and a larger ICE presence, culminating in the shooting of a protester, followed by a delayed medical response, and a subsequent framing of the event by government officials as a domestic terrorist attack.

The video discusses the events of the Capitol shooting and raises questions about the authenticity of the incident. It suggests that the protests were preplanned and involved paid actors. The speaker analyzes the footage and points out inconsistencies and suspicious behavior among the participants. They question the presence of fake blood and stage direction, as well as the actions of the individuals involved. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to question the narrative and continue analyzing the events.

Speaker 0 argues that “they are not here to cause safety in this city” and that “what they are doing is not to provide safety in America.” They claim those actions are “causing chaos and distrust,” and that such actions are “ripping families apart,” and “sowing chaos on our streets,” adding that in this case they are “quite literally killing people.” The speaker contends that the opposing side has already begun to frame the incident as an action of self-defense, and, after having seen the video themselves, states directly that this portrayal is “bullshit.” They insist that the situation does not reflect self-defense but rather that “this was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed.”

It's gonna be a challenge for all of the gun owners out in America. I want you to show how complicated it would be for somebody with an iPhone filming at 30 frames per second to film a bullet fired from a gun. "There was no second shooter, guys. We proved that." "Watch the Bulletproof vest video below this if you think there's a second shooter." "His chest was caved in as well." "The bullet hit right here, and it ricocheted up into his neck." "It was a level two vest. Somehow, it didn't go through it and didn't pierce it, and then it shanked up into his neck." "Second shooter, guys. Come on." "Alex Jones, the man that has been feeding us the trans shooter slop, the FBI garbage for literally the last week, is now showing video evidence shows that there may have been a second shooter involved in the assassination of Charlie Clark." "Did you know the trans cult embedded inside The US intelligence piggyback on top of Robinson's operation?" "I mean, at this point, I can't think that he's not controlled opposition." Then the setup: filming from the side at 10–15 feet from Charlie Kirk, 30 frames per second, on a tripod, and "don't even look at it" as they compare original footage to recompressed versions.

The speaker references a person who was removing memory cards from cameras about four minutes after what is described as the Charlie Kirk assassination, noting that something about the situation didn’t sit right. They mention Candace released a video showing how this person reacted, and that diligent investigation followed, including a campus visit to UVU to examine the events with a play-by-play analysis. The speaker says they will leave a link to that video but first shows a clip. In the clip, Speaker 1 describes the sequence: “He doesn't try to grab Charlie. He doesn't duck. His first reaction standing right here is to turn this way and start booking.” The person “starts booking back here,” and Speaker 1 notes that he sees the shot and that Charlie hasn’t even hit the ground yet. Charlie is described as being in a position where “Charlie’s like this,” and the person pivots to lean back. Security personnel respond by coming over, grabbing him, and pulling him to the ground. Meanwhile, Terrell Farnsworth “has already turned and begun running back here to climb up on that wall.” The speaker asks the audience to imagine there had just been a shooting, with chaos and people running. Charlie Kirk “was just shot,” and the wall is described as “almost as tall as I am.” The speaker asks the audience if they can see, confirming visibility. The analysis then focuses on the person’s actions: measuring “how much of a pain in the ass he climbed up right here and then threw that loose rock and just so he could get to his vantage point.” The speaker calls it out as an attempt to explain the sequence from the vantage point up the wall. The clip continues with the person producing a selfie video: “Oh, they shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie.” They refer to him as “Agent” and note his statements like “They shot Charlie. God help him.” The speaker says this behavior is a major red flag and cites it as the most troubling aspect. The running scene is described further: as the person runs out, he looks to his left and, in the footage, is seen climbing up, then reacting to the news that Charlie was shot. The voiceover emphasizes the emotional state (or lack thereof) as the footage shows the stampede of people and chaos. The speaker underscores that, to them, the absence of emotion on the person’s face during these events is “the biggest red flag of all.”

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.

During a protest, there were acts of violence against police officers. The speaker, who has custody of thousands of hours of videos, witnessed these acts. The officers responded with necessary force. However, another speaker claims that if the police hadn't used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the situation wouldn't have escalated. They argue that it was a peaceful protest and that the officers initiated the violence without provocation.

The video discusses the events of the Capitol shooting and raises questions about the authenticity of the incident. It suggests that the protests were preplanned and involved paid actors. The speaker analyzes the footage and points out various inconsistencies and suspicious actions by the individuals involved. They question the presence of fake blood and stage direction, as well as the behavior of the participants. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to question the narrative and continue analyzing the events.

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 speaker claims to possess video footage, not available to public media, showing Kyle Rittenhouse with an AK-47 shooting three people in the back.

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."