TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker begins by discussing their military career, serving in combat tours and doing counterterrorism work. They then talk about their educational background, including degrees in psychology and engineering, as well as a PhD in public health. They mention being offered positions at various government agencies and working at Sandia National Laboratories. They later transitioned to a job at ECLAF Alliance, where they focused on building machine learning and artificial intelligence platforms for detecting emerging infectious diseases. They mention being promoted to an executive position but becoming disillusioned with the company. They then discuss their expertise in SARS COV-2 and their belief that the government is lying about it. They mention being targeted and publishing a book called "The Truth About Wuhan."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the tactical sequence surrounding a man who approached a roof and the purported loophole used to take a shot. They note a distinction between “a guy walking up and getting on a roof” and “getting on a roof” in a way that suggests exploiting a loophole. They describe a tactic of banging a hole through one side, stepping back, and shooting through that hole, creating an opportunity they characterize as a loophole. They ask for a quick description of that loophole again. They reference a site: the Lucy Center behind the Sorensen Center, and explain that from their position they cannot see that area because it is not their area of responsibility; their focus is threats directly in front of them. They estimate about 3,000 threats in front of them, with a larger backdrop described as “an 18,000 foot mountain” in front and a “36,000 foot mountain” behind, suggesting limited visibility of the broader area. They note that if the shooter had stopped slightly to the right, the Sorensen Center would have been in the way and would block the view. Speaker 1 emphasizes that it is a very specific point, not just climbing onto the roof to gain a vantage point. Speaker 0 suggests there was “blind luck” involved—no crawling, no secondary shooter stuck in the weeds; instead a “boom on, boom run to, boom take the shot.” They ask whether the event had to have been rehearsed, and Speaker 1 indicates the vantage point was roughly seven feet high, a small area that would require search for that vantage point if one didn’t know where to look. They discuss the possibility of footage existing to show how the shooter reached the point or whether he searched for it. Speaker 0 suggests that a drone could have provided footage, lamenting its absence, and jokes about wanting to deploy a drone to examine the scene. They frame these as tactical questions: their team drills include rapid movement—running 300 yards, jumping a wall, taking a shot—with an example of a 35-foot declination at 200 yards. They acknowledge that even trained shooters sometimes miss under duress, noting it’s not merely the shot itself but the broader conditions. They also compare the current shooter to “old men that shoot stuff on sandbags,” underscoring the pressure of real-world conditions.

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president and take shots without help from insiders. He offers to protect the president for free.

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."

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."

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president with a rifle without inside help. Urging focus on those who allowed the incident, he offers to protect the president for free.

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, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could have accessed the area and fired shots without inside help. The speaker offers to protect the president for free if needed.

Speaker 1 recounts his journey from Butte, Montana, to the Navy SEALs, driven by a desire to leave town after a breakup. His initial plan of college basketball and business was derailed, leading him to a recruiter and a snap decision to join the Navy, despite not knowing how to swim. Butte is described as a tough mining town with good food, contrasting with the beauty of Bozeman. He recalls bringing SEAL Team Six members to Butte for skydiving. SEAL training was grueling, with a high attrition rate. He emphasizes the importance of mindset, focusing on small victories, and perseverance. He recounts humorous anecdotes from Hell Week and the camaraderie forged in misery. His first deployment was uneventful, but 9/11 changed everything. He describes missions in Liberia and Afghanistan, eventually joining SEAL Team Six. He details the rigorous selection process, HALO jumps, and the psychological challenges of the unit. Speaker 1 recounts the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, including the stealth helicopters, the crash landing, and the moment he shot bin Laden. He discusses the aftermath, the intelligence gathered, and the impact on his life. He discusses PTSD, his use of Ibogaine, and the importance of mental health treatment for veterans. He reflects on the moral complexities of war, the political motivations behind conflicts, and the need for critical thinking. He praises Admiral McRaven as an exceptional leader.

The speaker describes a bizarre and as-yet unexplained phenomenon surrounding a recent incident: people were googling the names of both the perpetrator and one of the victims—the young woman in Israel—before the event, which the speaker emphasizes as very strange. This phenomenon is presented as noteworthy and puzzling, with no further explanation provided within the transcript. Additionally, the speaker notes that Naved Akram was googled 15 times in Israel yesterday before the mass shooting. This detail is highlighted as part of the sequence of unusual online activity connected to the event, drawing attention to the pre-incident interest in Akram's identity. Beyond these observations, the speaker asserts specialized knowledge about firearms and the attacker’s technique. The speaker says, “I know about guns as you know, Hoz. I know about weapons.” This leads to a characterization of Naved Akram as an expert marksman. The speaker contends that Akram “handled the weapon exactly correctly,” with shots described as rapid but steady, contrasting them with “spraying” or wild firing. The assertion is that there was “no spraying” and that Akram’s rifle action was controlled, implying a high level of proficiency. Further, the speaker emphasizes that a bolt-action rifle is “a very difficult weapon for an inexperienced person to handle and to handle to such deadly effect,” underscoring the claim that Akram possessed significant skill. The speaker concludes by asserting that Akram is a man “who’s done this before,” suggesting prior experience or familiarity with similar acts. In sum, the transcript presents three core points: (1) a strange pre-event pattern of online searches for the perpetrator and the victim’s names, particularly in connection with the Israeli victim; (2) a note that Akram was searched online multiple times in the immediate lead-up to the incident; and (3) a detailed, unambiguous claim about Akram’s firearms expertise and method, portraying him as a trained marksman who executed a deliberate, controlled series of shots with a bolt-action rifle, implying prior experience with such actions.

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.

"I said that the sniper, the BA sniper, actually shot from right here." This is where the BA sniper shot from, right here. "The first shot was taken from the BA sniper." "That little blink that you just saw, that is the actual flash that's coming from the muzzle of the sniper rifle." He ties the event to "the infrared beam" and notes "This is why the infrared beam was on the cell phone." He describes "the arm pop out behind the cell phone to give the signal to take the shot." "This is your guy right here. This is him." He asks, "Who is he? Where is he going?" He states "The man was killed by his own team" and adds "scratch it." He references "This is Phil Lyman right here in the middle of your screen" and points to "That person in the red circle right there, that's the sniper. He came from this location right here." He concludes, "This is your guy" and reiterates, "So whatever everybody's telling you, scratch it."

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.

Speaker 0 notes several claims about involvement in Iraq and U.S. special operations. He states that certain U.S. special operation units were not allowed on the front lines with them in Iraq, and he refers to the front line as the FLAD, or the forward line of troops. He attributes this restriction not to the units themselves but to higher-ups and the chain of command within the U.S. forces. He emphasizes that this restriction affected their operations on the front lines. He then asserts that his team “absolutely shattered the previous world record with our sniper team in Mosul, Iraq from the very front line.” This is presented as a definitive accomplishment achieved from the front lines during the Mosul operations. Additionally, he claims personal proximity to U.S. forces in Iraq, stating that he was “side by side with their Delta Force doing hits in the city and in the country and all over the place.” This expresses direct collaboration or joint actions with Delta Force during operations in the urban and broader environments of Iraq. He suggests a possible reason for not mentioning Iraq in the discussion: “Maybe that’s why he left out Iraq.” The implication is that omitting Iraq or the related details might be connected to the prior points about restrictions on front-line presence by certain U.S. units, the role of higher command, and the collaboration with Delta Force. In summary, the speaker highlights three intertwined assertions: (1) U.S. units were restricted from front-line participation in Iraq by higher command, despite being present in the area; (2) the sniper team achieved a world-record-breaking performance on the front lines in Mosul, Iraq; and (3) the speaker personally operated in close coordination with Delta Force across multiple locations in Iraq, suggesting that these experiences may have influenced what was and was not mentioned about Iraq.

The speaker was asked about a statement where they said they carried weapons in war despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years of service and their record speaks for itself. They speak candidly and passionately, especially about children being shot in schools. When asked if they misspoke about being in war, the speaker said the conversation was about carrying weapons of war after a school shooting, and their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated they will never demean another member's service.

The speaker discusses their preference for the 50 caliber gun and mentions shooting it for a TV show. They then transition to trying out the 223 M4 Scorpion, comparing its weight to the 50 caliber. The speaker describes the AR 15 or its equivalent, the M4, as one of their favorite guns. They proceed to shoot the M4 with an aim point side.

The speaker references Rob O’Neill and “the other dozens of high level firearms experts” who have created content on this topic, stating that all of them have done range testing, including the speaker who personally tested with 30-06 rounds. He describes conducting a ballistics test using a variety of targets: sheep bone, cow vertebrae, cow femurs, cow femurs wrapped in 10 inches of meat, and even literal half-inch steel. He notes that ten other creators have also performed tests, and asserts that in 100% of the ballistics testing done so far, the 30-06 has blown straight through everything tested. He asks listeners to consider a specific question: why is there no video from Matt Tardio recreating the FBI narrative shot, and why doesn’t that video exist? He challenges others to take their gun to the range and replicate the test, insisting that they can obtain a 100% realistic ballistic human anatomy head set at 139 yards with a nine-degree slope and a nine-degree offset to replicate the shot, and to show the results. The speaker then recounts his own testing process and results. He says he took his time at the range with his guns to see if he could produce results that would match the narrative he’s questioning, and he says his testing showed certain outcomes. He then cites specific demonstrations from his range work: first, the cow neck vertebrae “ exploded.” He then mentions cow femurs, describing them as gigantic and “a 100 times stronger than a human neck,” explaining why the discussion is focusing on the neck region. He continues with another example and states, “That’s why we’re hitting next.” He attempts to review the results again, saying, “Maybe I didn’t. Here we go. I’m going back.” He concludes with an observation: “Oh, look. It exploded. Went right through. Maybe I did, miss.”

The speaker details a security career with frontline work in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve provided security services to the president of the United States and other high-ranking members of the U.S. government, and they’ve protected diplomatic personnel, high-net-worth corporate clients, media personalities, investigative journalists, and the general public. They continue this work as a SWAT team leader and executive protection specialist, and have been repeatedly recognized for high-level professionalism, proficiency, and knowledge of security measures across those fields. The narration signals ongoing analysis of past events, suggesting the speaker is evaluating what happened within this security context in complex environments.

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.

Americans have advanced weaponry for gunfights, including a shoulderable sidearm with speed and accuracy. It can carry over 40 rounds, is lighter than a 1911, and has a 6-inch barrel. The speaker encourages Americans to own one for self-defense. The video ends with a discount code for viewers.

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president with a rifle without inside help. Urging focus on those who allowed the incident, he offers to protect the president for free if needed.

Three unsuppressed shots were heard. A counter sniper with a tripod was on his optic. He popped his head up, then back down, and the rifle tilted down, then up, and he backed up. Another person who was prone hunkered their head down. The counter snipers thought they were being engaged because they could hear the sonic crack of rounds passing by them. They thought they were being shot at, not Trump.