reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 posits a theory that there were state actors or foreign intelligence agencies involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and attributes this belief to Benny Johnson, describing Johnson as “the anarchist” who told him so, and invites viewers to “check this clip out.” Speaker 1 responds by acknowledging that there is reason for people to believe this could be a professional hit job. They reference John Salmond as an excellent reporter and Steven Crowder as having access to leaked information. They state, “there is some considerable evidence that there were state actors involved here,” and emphasize their close connection to Charlie Kirk and his team, asserting that this is what they wish to relay to the audience. Speaker 0 returns to challenge Benny, asking which specific element changed his mind and led him to conclude that Tyler Robinson is now not a lone actor, and that state-level or foreign intelligence agencies were not involved in the assassination. He enumerates several potential clues: a text message from Lance Twiggs, similarities between Tyler Robinson’s photo and the jail mugshot, the speed at which Tyler Robinson was able to sprint, and the “man of steel” autopsy claim that Charlie Kirk stopped a 30-06 with his neck. He then asks which of these factors was decisive in shifting Benny’s belief away from the involvement of state actors, and expresses intent to wait for Benny’s answer.

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.”

The transcript describes a claim that Charlie Kirk's assassination might be fake, citing visual cues and a medical detail. "People are arguing that Charlie Kirk's assassination might be fake." "He leans over, and you can see that there's something right there in his shirt, something dark." "And then as the video goes on The mom went in there to help her and noticed she had vomited off some kind of blackish material." "It really looks almost like He bend he begins bleeding from that exact area that area." The overall content centers on perceived fakery, a dark mark on the shirt, a blackish material, and bleeding from a specific area.

"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."

"So this Charlie Kirk story just keeps getting weirder and winter." "we're supposed to believe that some random trans shooter was on the roof" "and then you tell me that he runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods." "if he left with a weapon and hid it in the woods, then why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?" "He even had an American flag shirt on." "I can't wrap my head around that." "And now the FBI with all their resources, that's the best photo that they can give us?" "Didn't we watch criminal minds as a kid?" "The BAU to, like, rerender that image and get it pixel perfect and go, yep. That's him." "Face recognition software. Match on the nose, ears, Boom. There he is." "This is weird, guys. This is freaking weird."

People are arguing that Charlie Kirk's assassination might be fake. 'this is a necklace and not some bulletproof vest.' 'You popped a squib, bro. He did.' 'the blood pack was fully emptied' and 'no blood hitting the concrete.' 'Now this blood that is supposedly coming out, this blood is is cleaned cleaned up, it's oxygenized and it's headed for the brain.' 'This is the magic of cinema. With a special tool filled with red liquid and remote controlled mini explosives, the effects of blood and gunshot wounds are made to look real.' 'This is a 100% production.' 'hired help.' 'a female filming' standing like a statue to film it all as well. 'these Freemasons, Charlie, he's a Freemason.' 'They do it all the time, constantly.' 'false flag.' 'Charlie is a good actor.'

Speaker 0: There's a there's a video there is circulating online now of the White House where a window is open to the residents upstairs, and somebody has thrown a big bag out the window. Have you seen this? Speaker 1: No. No. That's probably AI generator. So I actually, you can't open the windows. You know why? They're all heavily, armored and bulletproof. Speaker 0: So that's a fake a fake video? Speaker 1: Well, it's gotta be because because I know every window up there the last place I'd be doing it is that because there's cameras all over the place. Right? Including yours. Speaker 1: windows are all they're all sealed. You can't open them.

Speaker 0 describes Skyler as having given about four different interviews online right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. She notes he is seen with glasses on top of his head, front row at the scene, and somehow sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial during the memorial service. She asks, “Who is this guy? How is this possible? And why are his interviews so odd?” She points out that on the day of the shooting Skyler was in the front row and near a bodyguard. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 recount Skyler’s position: “Maybe 10 or 15 feet away when it happened. Close as he could.” They describe Skyler with sunglasses on his head, and a Charlie Kirk bodyguard in front of him, with Skyler off to the side in the corner when Charlie began taking questions. They note the bodyguard is directly in front of Charlie, Skyler to the side, matching Skyler’s own account of being “front row, Noel in front of him,” with a bodyguard to his left and one in front of him. They say Skyler was “front row and center.” Speaker 0 then says Skyler later appeared sitting on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial, with a floor pass for a press conference, literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They claim this is documented on Skyler’s Facebook page. They mention Skyler’s Facebook shows two, perhaps “two point, I think, k” followings, with from 2018 to 02/2025 only about seven posts and about 10 pictures, implying a sparse content profile for a “digital creator.” Speaker 3 describes Skyler’s earlier claim about getting into the stadium: “Just made it to the stadium. There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. … There’s been people waiting in line since 05:30 in the morning.” He says Skyler went past multiple security layers to obtain a media badge and a floor pass, and then ended up on the Main Floor “a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial.” The speakers question how he could gain access and yet appear to be late, then have a media pass and seating positions. Speaker 4 adds, “So, again, why go into detail acting as if you were late, you didn’t even know you were gonna get in, yet somehow you end up with a passing all these checkpoints to get a media pass around your deck, end up on the First, you know, Main Floor just a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial that day. It’s just like it’s a big act, a big show that this guy's putting on. It’s like he was handpicked to do all these interviews. He was handpicked to have front row that day because he was up, you know, farther up in the crowd before Charlie got there.” Speaker 4 closes with a segment featuring a clip of another person describing a mythic, imagery-laden interpretation: “An indecision night. I photoshopped in my mind. I photoshopped the blood away. I photoshopped Charlie, sat him back up, put his smile back on, and rewound the tape… I rewound the bullet going back up into the rifle. I stuck a flower inside the rifle.”

John and Mario discuss the breadth and implications of the Epstein files, asserting that Epstein was an access agent connected to Mossad and deeply embedded with various intelligence actors. - Epstein as Mossad access agent and broader intelligence ties: - John asserts that Epstein’s status as a Mossad access agent is correct and that Epstein sought contact with the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Council, MI5, MI6, and even Russia’s Putin. He notes emails from Epstein’s side asking for private meetings with Putin, which were granted in a restricted form, while Epstein’s attorneys reportedly filed FOIA requests with the CIA and NSC about any association with them. - The conversation expands to consider broader pressure on the DOJ and the Trump administration to redact or withhold documents, with Congresswoman May mentioned as observing DOJ monitoring of her and colleagues. - The two discuss the idea that the “movers and shakers” in American culture and the billionaire/political class are driving the cover-up, with the implication that releases mandated by law have not been fully honored. - Death of Epstein and questions about the death/mortality: - Both speakers repeatedly state “Epstein did not kill himself,” noting the belief that he was murdered and cremated, preventing body examination. - They list several anomalies surrounding Epstein’s death: attempted suicide on July 23 with deleted footage, six days of suicide watch followed by removal from watch contrary to protocol, guards’ missed rounds, an empty cell with a removed cellmate who had been violent, an unmonitored call the day before death, and camera malfunctions on the day of death. - They discuss a decoy body used in the autopsy process and discrepancies in the autopsy report (ear shape, nose, and penis appearance) and a DOJ report dated a day earlier than publicized. The discussion includes the possibility of a decoy body to mislead reporters. - A forensic expert is cited, noting that the autopsy description described a normal penis, conflicting with accounts from a victim about a deformed penis. - Redactions, sources, and the release of documents: - They argue the released files overwhelm audiences and muddy facts, with millions of documents, of which only a fraction has been released; the rest remain redacted. - John explains FOIA processes and redaction rules (sources/methods, unindicted co-conspirators, victims’ privacy), emphasizing that there is little justification to redact content about Epstein himself since he is deceased. - They compare the redaction situation to the torture report, where redacted material obscures critical findings, and point out inconsistencies in what names are redacted (e.g., Les Wexner redacted as “Les” but not his full surname). - Libyan assets, Ukraine, and other financial angles: - A memo shows Epstein plotting to loot Libya’s frozen assets, with Greg Brown (former MI6 and Mossad connections mentioned) proposing to identify recovered assets and take 5–10% as compensation, with Libya’s reconstruction spending potentially exceeding $100 billion. - The discussion notes that the U.S. Treasury rewards those who facilitate repatriation of unfrozen assets, creating incentives for private actors with intelligence ties to pursue such recoveries. - A separate thread cites a 2014 Ukraine-related discussion where Epstein allegedly said the upheaval could provide opportunities; the Rothschilds are reported to have emailed Epstein about Ukraine and asset management strategies, implying Epstein represented the Rothschilds in asset opportunities. - They discuss the possibility that events like regime changes could be exploited for personal gain, with Epstein’s reputation management and potential money-motivated exploitation of geopolitical upheavals. - Honeypots, blackmail, and sex as an intelligence instrument: - The discussion covers claims of victims receiving death threats in Hebrew, and whether this indicates Mossad involvement or a private group using Hebrew phrasing to threaten. They argue Mossad has historically used threats and spying, and Epstein’s network could include others who leveraged sexual exploits for leverage. - They examine emails describing sexual activity in a transactional manner, with grainy surveillance footage capturing some redacted sexual content, suggesting a blackmail operation rather than simple perversion alone. - They consider whether Epstein’s sex life served as a bargaining chip for intelligence services, with Epstein’s protection and coercion potentially enabling illicit activity to be used for intelligence purposes. - Notable connections and individuals: - Fergie (Sarah, Duchess of York) is discussed as having close ties to Epstein, including emails referencing “marry me” and a period after his conviction; Prince Andrew is noted as heavily implicated in the broader Epstein network. - Howard Lutnick’s name appears in the documents; his denial of involvement with Epstein is highlighted as a potential discrepancy given the surrounding evidence. - The possibility that redacted materials could still reveal high-level connections or be weaponized against political figures is considered, with the overarching view that information could resurface or be released later to influence politics. - Final stance and ongoing investigation: - John maintains that Epstein’s role as an intelligence asset is supported by the files released to date and that more documents remain to be disclosed. He emphasizes that the situation involves intersecting intelligence communities, financial opportunism, and political exposure, with ongoing questions about the true extent of who knew what and who protected whom. The conversation closes with an acknowledgment that more files will likely be released, more information will emerge, and expert analysis will continue to evolve.

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

The speaker points out inconsistencies in the evidence surrounding Chip's death. The autopsy photographs suggest that he was strangled rather than hanged, as the ligature mark is in the middle of his neck and goes straight back. The lack of lividity, or blotchiness, on the back of his legs and buttocks also contradicts the claim that he was hanging for two hours. These discrepancies raise doubts about the official explanation of his death.

The speaker addresses several common claims about the deceased, providing corrected explanations based on mortuary practice. They state that the body was embalmed, which is why the hands appear waxy; embalming firms the tissues, removes circulation, and creates a smooth, waxy look, after which cosmetics are applied to restore color. In this case, the embalmer apparently was attempting to cover bruising, rather than color-correct, resulting in a heavy, dark, and incorrect shade that makes the hands read as unnatural or mannequin-like to nonexperts. The speaker emphasizes that the appearance is due to embalming and cosmetics, not refrigeration, a week-long delay, or Hollywood special effects. Regarding autopsies, the speaker asserts that high-profile homicide equals automatic autopsy, a standard procedure that applies regardless of who the person is. They argue that the body was autopsied immediately and embalmed immediately, and that all of this can occur within a twenty-four hour window when involved parties include the family, law enforcement, and, in this case, the vice president, implying funeral homes can move quickly when necessary. On the matter of whether the body could have had time to deteriorate or be left unrefrigerated, the speaker rejects the notion, reiterating that the process involved was rapid autopsy and embalming, not a delayed or neglected handling. When addressing the appearance of the hands, the speaker explains that what is seen is not a wax dummy but embalming with cosmetics. The embalmer’s goal was to cover bruising, but the cosmetic work was done poorly—too heavy, too dark, and the wrong shade—leading to the perception of aging or an unnatural look. The speaker also tackles a question about a missing indent where a wedding ring would be. They explain that men’s rings often sit differently than women’s; rings slide over larger knuckles and may not leave a deep indent. They note that the groove may not be permanent, and point out that watching videos of him shows him handling his rings, suggesting the indentation isn’t definitive. Furthermore, embalming changes the appearance by firming and plumping tissues, which can smooth small lines, wrinkles, and minor indentations. The speaker gives an example of elderly individuals looking years younger after embalming because fine wrinkles fill in. In summary, the video argues that the observed waxy hands result from embalming and cosmetics, not refrigeration or negligence; autopsies are performed promptly in high-profile cases; the rapid timeline is plausible given involving parties; and ring indent explanations combine anatomy (knuckles) with embalming effects, rather than indicating a missing feature.

Two speakers discuss a report about Charlie's death. They relay the claim: They're reporting that Charlie has died, that he's dead at the age of 31, which he would have to be if that video was real. They consider implications of the video, suggesting that the age would align with the video if it were authentic. They then exchange skepticism about survival: There's no way he survived that. The only good thing is it had to have happened quickly. The first speaker concurs with uncertainty, concluding with: Right. Right. The brief exchange emphasizes belief in the reported death tied to the video's alleged authenticity and an assumption about rapid events.

Two participants watch a video and debate whether the footage is stock and whether 'it's a compositing trick'. 'Let's see how he proves that it's not stock footage' is asked. They claim, 'as a statement of fact, those do not match,' while another counters, 'Dude, it is exact.' They discuss alignment: 'It's not though. See that the black actually does not line up.' They ask, 'Right? You see how it's not the same on the, like, the edges?' and 'All dispersal patterns look the same.' 'Did you do that?' 'All the dispersal no.' 'No. No. No.' A blunter line appears: 'This is like saying that my butthole is your butthole because they're similar.' 'What?' 'Okay. That's wild.'

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

The speakers recount the moments surrounding Charlie Kirk being shot and highlight the behavior of Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kelley’s chief of staff. The account begins with a father describing his son’s roles: Justin is the chief financial officer, and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls the instant Charlie was shot: “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing at the time, with blood all over him. Speaker 1 focuses on Mikey’s actions during the incident. He notes that Mikey is still there, phone in hand, texting, talking, then putting the phone away. He points to the person Charlie is arguing with, Hunter Kozak, and emphasizes what the video shows about Mikey: he seems to see Charlie get hit and “simply walks away.” Mikey later reappears on the other side of the tent, not running but walking. The account questions whether Mikey might be on the phone, though it isn’t certain. Security guards are described as doing their part, while Mikey is shown “walking, like getting far away from everything.” The narrative suggests Mikey turned his back on the incident after it happened. Speaker 2 names Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend, describing what he did or did not do during the morning. The speaker asserts that Mikey “spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side filming everything,” but then “abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed.” The key questions posed are whether Charlie was actually dead, whether he needed help, and whether Mikey rushed to aid him or instead got his camera out. The speaker concludes that, according to the account, “Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” In summary, the described sequence presents Mikey McCoy as being present with Charlie prior to the shooting, then engaging in texting and moving away, appearing on the far side of the tent, and ultimately turning his back on Charlie after the incident, with the claim that he abandoned him as Charlie passed. The recounting is reinforced by a second speaker who reiterates that Mikey did not assist Charlie and appeared to prioritize other actions over Charlie’s welfare.

Speaker 0: 'you guys are basically stealing people's stuff and not paying them, and then he wound up murdered.' Speaker 1: 'Also a great tragedy. He committed suicide.' Speaker 0: 'Do you think he committed suicide?' Speaker 1: 'It was a gun he had purchased.' Speaker 0: 'There were signs of a struggle, of course. The surveillance camera, the wires had been cut.' Speaker 0: 'No indication at all that he was suicidal. No note.' Speaker 1: 'And his mother claims he was murdered on your orders.' Speaker 0: 'the city of San Francisco has refused to investigate it beyond just calling it a suicide.' Speaker 1: 'I immediately called a member of congress from California, Ro Khanna, and said, this is crazy. You gotta look into this. And nothing ever happened.'

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.

So you know the kid who was asking Charlie Kirk a question when Charlie got shot? Remember him? Everyone's feeling bad for him? Yeah. There's video footage of him practicing his reaction before it happened. So when Charlie got shot, you know, his reaction was to put his hands on his head, look shocked, shake a little bit. Yeah. He was doing that. He was practicing that in the crowd, and here's the freaking video. How are you gonna deny what you just saw there? How? And you already know what question, you know, he was asking Charlie. Right? Remember that? This just confirms what a lot of us have been thinking and what we all think actually happened. Sick.

"Now I can tell you the part that he is telling the truth about is that Charlie's neck indeed did stop the bullet without question." "Charlie Kirk was shot from the front and the bullet did not exit." "And at least a fragment of the bullet was recovered from his neck." "They did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "They found a 30 odd six bullets." "Charlie's death certificate certainly would have reflected that." "There is not one reflected onto Charlie Kirk's death certificate because they did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "Andrew has claimed that he had a conversation with the surgeon who offered up the idea that it really was just your modern Christian miracle." "What are we to make of that?"

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

"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."

"So we're supposed to believe that some random trans shooter was on the roof, took this shot, runs across into the rooftop, jumps down, somehow magically being undetected because the FBI releases a a video footage." "Was this when he was walking into the building, the then he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior, and he somehow managed to walk back in the second time without the weapon." "And then because if he left with a weapon and hid it in the woods, then why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?" "Didn't we watch criminal minds as a kid? Like, they have this super advanced software where they upload the image, and then the FBI just does their like, where's the BAU at and shit?" "Face recognition software. Match on the nose, ears, Boom. There he is."

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

Speaker 0 opens by stating this is the very first time a United States State Funeral Director Association president or former president has spoken about unusual white fibrous clots that embalmers with twenty or thirty years of experience have never seen in their corpses before until the years of COVID and the COVID vaccines. He notes, in his latest worldwide survey, it was about one out of every five corpses that had this phenomenon, and asks Chris what he’s seeing. Chris (Speaker 1) replies that it’s a little bit higher than that. He has been seeing it in probably thirty to forty percent of each and every body that he embalm's. He describes these as foreign bodies that they have never come across, or at least he has never come across in the ten years that he has been a funeral director and embalmer. He also believes it’s been more than ten years, which he says is a little humbling. He emphasizes that, regardless, it’s a serious problem that needs to be addressed and looked into, and warns against turning a blind eye to it for whatever reason, whether it’s an agenda or what have you, calling that a big problem. Chris further suggests that these findings raise concerns about potential connections to health outcomes, asking who knows if these are causing rapidly progressing cancers, along with heart attacks or strokes that many younger individuals are experiencing. He stresses that this is something that needs to be pursued.