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."

"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.

There was a discussion about a shooting incident involving a secret service sniper who successfully neutralized a threat from about 400 yards away. Concerns were raised about the possibility of a second shooter, referencing a video by John Collin that shows a bullet's trajectory and its impact on bystanders, suggesting it couldn't have originated from the main suspect, Thomas Crooks. The group emphasized the importance of examining this evidence and bringing in witnesses to clarify the situation. They highlighted that bullet trajectory is a critical factor in understanding the events and the number of shots fired. The need for thorough investigation and transparency from authorities was also mentioned.

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."

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.”

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."

The speaker addresses the claim that Candace Owens made that Charlie Kirk was 100% hit from the front, bullets shoot straight, and that we know he was shot from the front. The speaker argues logically about entry wound in the neck with no exit wound: the only logical thing that could have stopped the bullet in the neck would be the spine. If the bullet came in and ended up hitting the spine, whether it went down, around, or out the armpit, the fact that it hit his throat and went into his neck and then didn’t go out the back would logically lead to the belief that he was shot almost from straight on or perhaps from an off-center angle like 01:00 or 11:00, because the trajectory would have had to hit the spine to stop. If it hadn’t hit the spine, an angled shot from that side could have torn through the jugular or gone through to the other side. The speaker concludes that the only logical conclusion is that he was hit from the front. The speaker mentions the possibility of a drone and a second shooter at a much farther away position, praising Gary Melton at Paramount Tactical for drone surveillance. Three-D renderings and images of the campus layout are expected, aiming to determine definitively whether anyone else in an elevated position had a clear line of sight to shoot Charlie Kirk from the front. The speaker dismisses trapdoors or a bullet coming from the ground or AI as unlikely, asserting that the observed reaction of Charlie Kirk’s body supports a front-shot scenario. The speaker notes that something appeared to blow him out of the chair and questions how the necklace could have been blown off. The speaker suggests another type of device could have been simulated at the moment of the shooting, possible with gas-powered or air-powered technology that agencies like Mossad possess; they could have designed a camera with a hidden gun that would shoot Charlie from the front. According to the speaker, the logical sequence is: Charlie Kirk was shot, the bullet entered the neck, most likely hit the spine, and caused the described body reaction. Until more definitive proof of another logical explanation is found, the speaker remains aligned with the front-shot interpretation. The speaker then invites viewers to comment with “front” or “side” and to participate in a Twitter Space at 5 PM where an expert will discuss Charlie Kirk’s security detail. The speaker identifies themselves as Ryan Mehta and signs off, inviting viewers to join at 05:00.

The speaker asserts that Charlie Kirk was shot from the front and that the bullet did not exit his body, with at least a fragment of the bullet recovered from his neck. This is presented as the part of the story that is true and is claimed to dispel various theories. The speaker states they have fact-checked this information from multiple sources over more than a week of review. The fragment is described as being recovered “right around here,” approximately in line with Charlie Kirk’s shoulder blade, near the center of the back, in a location “almost in line with your shoulder blade.” The speaker argues this location provides a bullet trajectory: the bullet entered in the described area, was stopped there, and a fragment was pulled from the neck region along the spine’s line. A key point emphasized is that a .30-06 round was not recovered intact. The speaker asserts that there was no recovered bullet from a .30-06, stating that “They did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six. They didn’t recover a bullet from a 30 odd six. Just didn't happen.” They contrast this with the presence of .30-06 bullets in some context, implying that while .30-06 rounds were found, no complete bullet was recovered. The speaker notes that death certificates in suicide cases typically reflect the gun and the bullet when both are known, and claims that there is not a bullet reflected on Charlie Kirk’s death certificate because a .30-06 bullet was not recovered. The speaker asserts that the information has been cross-checked with multiple sources and that it undermines other theories, reinforcing that common sense supports their account. The closing remark addresses hunters and military personnel, acknowledging agreement with their perspective: “Hunters and military men rejoice. It turns out that common sense still rules the roost. Okay? You guys were right.”

A Secret Service sniper reportedly neutralized a threat with one bullet from approximately 400 yards away. One person stated that if the sniper hadn't acted, more people could have been hurt. Despite this, some suggest the possibility of a second shooter. A video by John Collin allegedly shows a bullet traveling down the bleachers at an angle inconsistent with the location of Thomas Crooks. The video purportedly shows the bullet's trajectory, impact on clothing, and impact on a railing. Some suggest that the task force should examine Collin's video evidence, which allegedly shows a bullet trajectory that could not have originated from Thomas Crooks' position. Bullet trajectory and coefficients are cited as key factors, with John Collin's video showing the line of sight to injured individuals and the stage, raising questions about the number of shots fired. A single video allegedly captures three kinetic events in a straight line, suggesting a trajectory.

Steven (interviewer) and Charlie Kirk’s discussion covers the Charlie Kirk shooting at the Utah Valley University campus, the evidence, theories, and ongoing investigations. The key points are: - Two narratives around the incident: many are angry about the Gaza-Israel war, while others note Charlie Kirk was irritated about defending Israel more than America and about a Jewish donor pulling money; this discrepancy led some to speculate about Israeli involvement, though no definitive link is presented in their discussion. - The microphone/explosion theory and the “exploding mic” explanation are challenged. The mic is deemed too small to cause the observed effects, there is no residue, and the shirt’s cavitation can account for the shirt puffing without an explosion. They discuss the lack of burns or tears and conclude the exploding-mic theory does not fit the evidence they examined. - On the terrain and line of sight: a walkthrough of the scene revealed the Losey Building is two or three stories tall, with Charlie Kirk in a lower amphitheater area; the shooter, Tyler Robinson, fired from above, shooting downward. The terrain and proximity were difficult to gauge from Google Maps, and being physically present changed their understanding of distances and angles. The shooter’s position, sightlines, and the potential visibility of the shooter’s face or gun from the roof were clarified through on-site observation. - Handprint and measurement observations: a handprint believed to be from Tyler Robinson was found on the roof edge, accompanied by a measurement tape suggesting a length around 36 to 40 inches, consistent with the length of a rifle. A yellow tape measure taped to the building and later footage from a telescoping camera supported this assessment. There was discussion about whether the handprint length corresponded to a rifle’s size, and whether a towel on the shooter concealed a weapon. - Video and evidence release: there is an ongoing investigation, and authorities have not released all video or autopsy details. They emphasize the rights of Tyler Robinson to due process; unlike a deceased suspect, Robinson is alive and defense counsel is heavily involved. Investigators have used lasers, measurements, and other techniques at the crime scene, but not all footage is publicly shared during ongoing proceedings. - Autopsy and ballistic questions: debates about wound direction (front versus rear entry), exit wounds, and the possibility that a 30-06 round could be consistent with the neck wound; a front-entry or behind-back trajectory is discussed. Forensic experts describe how X-rays and ballistic analysis will determine the bullet’s path and fragments, while noting that the death certificate does not specify the bullet type, which is a common practice. - Candace Owens and donor-related DM discussions: Candace released DMs in which Charlie Kirk reportedly said, “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.” They discuss whether those messages indicate Israel involvement or donor pressure. Steven argues donors may have wanted Kirk to uphold Judeo-Christian values and that the donor dynamics could explain some tensions, but they do not conclude an Israeli conspiracy. - Discord chats, text messages, and “trans terror cell” theories: they discuss the possibility of Discord chats and messages being forged or taken out of context; some theories mention a transgender cell or coordinated conspiracies. Steven notes Kash Patel announced investigations into conspiracy theories, but as of now no arrests have occurred. The Discord exchanges were described as real in part, but their relevance to planning remains uncertain; there is speculation about premeditation versus reactive admissions. - Other theories and debunkings: theories such as trapdoors, tunnels, or irrigation pipes were addressed and dismissed. Claims about an Egyptian military plane, drones, or a private jet turning off transponders were also discussed and generally debunked or dismissed based on timing, geolocation, and official statements. - Weapon specifics and trajectory: Matt Tardio and Chris Martenson are referenced regarding the ballistics and wound mechanics; Steven suggests the 30-06 wound is plausible if the cartridge quality and angle were favorable, but emphasizes that more autopsy details and bullet analysis are required. He expects more evidence to emerge during the trial, including ballistics, gun residue on the shooter’s clothes and car, and the shooter’s geolocation data. - Trust in institutions: the conversation closes with a note that, regardless of the findings, trust in institutions like the FBI heavily influences how people accept or reject the evidence and conclusions. They acknowledge that even with extensive surveillance footage and forensic analysis, public trust will shape the reception of any official findings. Steven commends the coverage for being thorough and methodical across multiple theories. In summary, the discussion blends现场 observations with ongoing investigative questions: the on-site terrain clarified shooting angles, the handprint and measurement evidence suggested rifle length, and the autopsy/ballistics details remain pending; many alternative theories (explosive mic, trapdoors, drone activity, coordinated conspiracies, or donor-driven motives) are discussed and evaluated against observed evidence, with a general emphasis on awaiting official forensic results and trial proceedings.

After a thorough investigation into the John F. Kennedy assassination, the initial congressional hearing was flawed regarding the single bullet theory. I believe there were two shooters. Hopefully, we can gain access to the SCIF before the files are released to the public to find more information.

"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."

The speaker suggests bringing in John Cullen, who has video evidence of a bullet trajectory that would have been difficult to achieve if the shot came from Thomas Crooks. Cullen's video allegedly shows the path of a bullet and the disruption it makes before hitting a stadium fence railing. The speaker believes any worthwhile investigation should examine all theories, including those deemed "conspiratorial," to either disprove them or validate them. Another speaker echoes this sentiment, stating that bullet trajectory and its coefficients don't lie. They mention discussing Cullen's video with Eli prior to the hearing, noting that it shows the line of sight to injured people from the stage, suggesting possibilities regarding the number of shots taken.

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

In the discussion, the speakers focus on forensic details and the handling of evidence surrounding the Charlie Kirk case and Tyler Robinson. Stefan Gardner is cited as stating that “dust samples alone will go a long way in ending speculation about Tyler Robinson fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk,” arguing that the dust on the rocks will have a unique signature and will be on the killer’s clothes, gun, and shoes. The dust and soil samples are expected to show dust on the tread of shoes and soil where the gun was laid, and gun residue on the hands from handling the weapon. A forensic expert is quoted saying the roof where the shooting occurred was covered in pebbles and rocks, so dust signatures will be found on the shooter’s clothes, gun, and shoes, and that the car is also a major part of the evidence due to dust, soil, and gun residue on the steering wheel from the shooter’s hands. There is discussion about the sequence of events: the shooter allegedly disassembling or reassembling the gun, laying down a towel, firing, rolling up the gun, and leaving within about fourteen seconds to flee into the woods. The possibility is mentioned that the shooter could be identified by dust on the gear and by the car evidence. James Lee responds to the crowd, accusing others of focusing on dust samples while dismissing the need to first match the bullet to a gun, calling out the discussion as clownish. The conversation anticipates trial evidence including shoe DNA and other forensic marks, with a sense that official video footage might be suppressed or lost while experts testify about the evidence. The speakers criticize the FBI narrative, arguing that none of the FBI’s presented evidence has made sense, particularly challenging the 30-06 caliber discussion. They reference a prior demonstration with a 30-06 round fired into a setup of meat to simulate a neck wound, a steel plate, and a two-liter bottle, asserting that even the smallest 30-06 round would not produce the described result at the distance claimed, and suggesting Tyler Robinson would have been inside 150 yards. There is insistence that video footage exists and should be released to restore trust, including CCTV footage showing Tyler Robinson’s movements on campus—climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and sprinting away. They call for CCTV footage and autopsy video to be released, along with video showing Tyler Robinson at the crime scene for four hours, arguing that the investigation would be more transparent if these materials were made public rather than kept from the public eye. The speakers express distrust of the FBI and other agencies, alleging deep state manipulation and claiming that video and DNA evidence could be forged or misrepresented, while demanding concrete, visible evidence in the form of footage and autopsy details.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a conspiracy surrounding Charlie’s death, challenging the official narrative. - Speaker 0 says, “we definitely penetrated our water jugs,” and notes this won’t stop conspiracy theories. “His head fell off. I figured this is probably what would happen. I was trying to remain optimistic, but that right there is why people are skeptical on the official story.” They state, “The thirty aught six is a very hard round to stop.” - Speaker 1 adds that they want to illustrate what the federal government is selling, and asserts, “that particular bullet would have decapitated Charlie.” They describe the idea that the bullet ricocheted and went inward as “beyond ridiculous” and “insulting.” They criticize attempts to present a certain narrative with goofball public figures, saying, “they think that if they send out these, like, glee boys, like Nick Fuentes… then a bunch of hunters are gonna go, yeah. I see what you mean, man.” They declare that the scenario is never going to happen. - They foresee two possible outcomes: either the government will declare war on the American people because the public won’t accept their account, or they will have to “give us something that’s truthful.” They insist someone must come forward with something that makes sense. - Speaker 1 expresses a belief that the conspiracy is far-reaching, likening it to the JFK assassination, and claims that people close to Charlie are aware of things and “sold him out in many ways every single day.” They argue that the more the truth is avoided and the anxiety surrounding the night before Charlie died is downplayed, the guiltier those involved appear. - They state a conviction that the Deep State is involved in the assassination and that multiple states are implicated. They contend those responsible “don’t know what to do” and have “completely come undone” because they believed wealth and power would let them get away with it. However, they suggest “common sense seems to be ruling the roost.” Overall, the speakers argue that the official explanation is implausible, predict governmental evasions or manipulation, and contend that a deep-state-backed conspiracy involving multiple states may be uncovering itself as untenable under scrutiny. They emphasize the need for truthful disclosure rather than continued obfuscation.

A Secret Service sniper neutralized a threat from approximately 400 yards away with one bullet. The sniper was able to assess the problem and act within five seconds, potentially preventing further harm. Despite this, some believe a second shooter may have been involved. A video by John Collin allegedly shows a bullet trajectory inconsistent with the identified shooter, Thomas Crooks. The video purportedly depicts a bullet traveling down the bleachers, disturbing clothing, hitting a railing, and creating a puff, with a trajectory misaligned with Crooks' position. There are calls to examine Collin's video evidence and bring him in for questioning regarding the possibility of a second shooter, as bullet trajectory doesn't lie. The video allegedly shows the line of sight to injured people and the stage, raising questions about the number of shots fired. Analysis of the video suggests three kinetic events in a straight line, indicating a trajectory that could be extrapolated.

Rob was asked about his viral comments on the Piers Morgan show and the ongoing discussion around Charlie Kirk’s assassination. He says from the outset he smelled a rat and didn’t buy the official narrative being spun. He notes that when he first heard Kirk was shot and saw the video, an exit wound coming out of the neck and the movement of the shirt suggested an impact nearby, which didn’t fit what he’d expect from his experience with ballistics. Rob describes the sequence: the FBI announces they’ve got the shooter, a man on the roof “took it apart,” put a scope on, fired a cold bore shot, then jumped to a roof, wrapped it up, and sent texts that didn’t sound like a 22-year-old. He says he’s typically drawn to the simplest explanation, but asking questions leads to being torn down. He emphasizes he never claimed Israel was responsible, but says asking questions is met with accusations of antisemitism. He raises questions about security procedures after Kirk was down, asking what happened to the lapel mic, the SIM card, and who took the camera behind him, and whether crime-scene contamination occurred, whether the area was repaved or rebuilt, and whether the gravesite exists and how the stadium event was organized so quickly. Rob recounts how, when he asks questions, he’s labeled antisemitic or a conspiracy theorist, even though he says he’s “killed a bunch of people for the country” and wants to know why a great American was killed in front of everyone. He notes the FBI’s inconsistent statements, such as claiming the weapon was a 30-06 rifle, showing a gun image, and various excuses like a ricochet off body armor followed by later claims that there was no body armor, then again something else. He questions what would happen to a neck with a 30-06, suggests the autopsy report should be released, and asks why the chair and desk were moved, implying potential forensic implications. Speaker 1 (Rob) emphasizes uncertainty: he wasn’t there, so he can’t say for certain, but there are questions about whether a shot was taken or if a shaped charge or other device could have been involved. He asks where the gun, the bullets, and the ballistic evidence are, and why there isn’t clear video showing the moment the shot was fired. He notes that much of the official footage is “potato footage” from many cameras, while the supposed key video isn’t released. Towards the end, the host comments on common accusations and mislabeling when challenging the official narrative. Rob thanks the host, and they acknowledge continuing discussions, with Rob offering to provide “solid conspiracies.” They close with mutual well-wishes and a light joke about conspiracies.

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

Speaker 0 says they downloaded nearly original footage from the incident and note that reuploads compress the file, referencing “the national file,” and aim to “disprove this or not.” Speaker 1 points to Charlie Kirk: “how many You see him right there? That’s him debating with somebody here right before he gets shot.” “He got shot from his right hand side on that side coming out here.” They discuss a rooftop shooter theory, noting walls, bleachers, and that “you got shot from rooftop.” They show a rooftop trajectory diagram: “count with me… flat surface one, flat surface two, and then flat surface three… almost up on four,” arguing the shooter would have a straight shot at Charlie. They claim “this is 100% the shot” and say “the mic… was the first entry wound” is incorrect; “there is no entry wound on the left side of his neck. He got hit on the right side.” They demand CCTV footage release from Turning Point, noting cameras and a cameraman, and urge campus footage to verify angles, mentioning trees “above the rooftop” and needing to see if the edge of the roof is visible. They conclude the shooter was on the highest point and that multiple cameras likely captured it.

Our first investigation will thoroughly examine the John F. Kennedy assassination. Preliminary findings suggest flaws in the single bullet theory presented in the initial congressional hearing. We believe there were two shooters. We're working to access secure information, hopefully before public release, to uncover more evidence. We'll announce our findings soon.

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.”

"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."

Our first investigation will be announced soon and will cover a thorough investigation into the John F. Kennedy assassination. Based on what I've seen so far, the initial hearing held in Congress was faulty regarding the single bullet theory. I believe that there were two shooters, and we should find more information as we gain access to the SCIF, hopefully before the files are released to the public.