reSee.it - Related Video Feed

This is the Israeli company that went and grabbed the device or whatever it is allegedly. Watch the lavalier lapel mic. Do you see it explode? That is the explosion from Charlie Kirk's lavalier lapel mic. Remember when we told you that that was absolutely an exit wound? Yeah, it is. First, we had exploding pagers. Now we have exploding mics. That proves that all of the activity came from the mic that Charlie Kirk was wearing. Remember the palm gun guy in the brown shirt, that shadowy looking guy with the sunglasses? He pushes the detonator. This guy, brown shirt guy, he's the assassin.

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

- Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility that a friend was murdered and suggest that both victims died suddenly from fast-moving cancer, a method they say the agency uses overseas to eliminate people. Speaker 1 admits he cannot prove this but notes the sudden deaths. - The conversation asserts that the US government has technology to infect people with fast-moving cancer and to perform cognitive and directed-energy warfare. Speaker 0 states the government has the technology to infect with fast-moving cancer and to do so absolutely. - In 1997, Speaker 1 describes a hearing on asymmetric threats where he chaired the research committee and focused on four threats: drones, cyberattacks, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and cognitive warfare. He asserts that cognitive warfare is now being labeled by some as Havana syndrome and that directed-energy weapons are the underlying technology. - Speaker 2 recounts a recent homeland security hearing about foreign adversaries using direct weapons against US citizens, enabling incapacitation. He emphasizes the chilling nature of the briefing and criticizes current domestic leadership as foolish, corrupt, incompetent, and wicked. - Speaker 3 notes that up to 40% of the Air Force equipment budget in the 1990s was classified, making much of it “black.” He emphasizes that military and security research often precedes civilian medical science, and that servicemen were used in experiments without fully informed consent, referencing NK Ultra-era disclosures of thousands of service members used as subjects. - Speaker 4 discusses MKUltra, describing a Canadian experiment involving psychic driving with massive LSD doses, eye-tracking, and memory loss, funded by MKUltra and affecting civilians. He mentions Project Midnight Climax, where Johns were observed in brothels while subjected to LSD, and notes similar experiments by the British Royal Air Force and Army. The results of Midnight Climax are unknown, with no published after-action reports. - Speaker 3 adds that Secretary of Energy O’Leary stated under Clinton that over a half a million Americans had been used in human experiments over four decades without informed consent, including mind control, with no accountability. He argues that mind-control technology has advanced, and questions who should govern its use, given the lack of legal frameworks. - The discussion covers mind-effects research and the lack of treaties governing such technologies. They reference a European Parliament security and disarmament resolution (1999) addressing mind-effects and mind-control technology, and Russian Duma resolutions (2002) seeking similar safeguards. Zabigniew Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages is cited regarding electronically stroking the ionosphere to influence behavior over geographic areas, connecting it to HARP and other electromagnetic carriers capable of mass or individual influence. - Speaker 6 explains historical demonstrations of electronic mind control, starting with Jose Delgado’s remote manipulation of a charging bull using radio energy and electrodes, and notes later work showing noninvasive techniques to influence behavior using low-power magnetic fields. Speaker 7 reiterates Delgado’s animal studies and the potential for noninvasive methods to affect emotions and memory, with broader implications for humans. - Speaker 3 discusses the progression of research funded by DARPA and others toward higher-resolution control of brain activity, enabling controlled effects that override senses and create synthetic memories, raising questions about future justice and evidence. They describe European Parliament and NATO/US military interest in mind-control technologies and the absence of robust legal protections. - Speaker 9 presents advances in AI-enabled brain-reading and memory-altering devices, including mind-reading and emotion decoding, while Speaker 10 and Speaker 12 discuss privacy concerns, brain-data privacy laws (Colorado’s law adding brain data to privacy protections), and the availability of consumer devices that decode brainwaves. They warn that brain data can be misused by insurers, law enforcement, advertisers, and governments, with private companies often sharing data without clear disclosure. - The segment concludes with a note that devices can infer attention and thoughts, and that DARPA’s N3D program aims for noninvasive neuromodulation with implantable electrodes read/write capabilities. It references 1980s–1990s discussions of RF energy as a potential nonlethal mind-control technology, and a 1993 Johns Hopkins conference listing low-frequency weapons as attractive options.

Speaker 0 claims to have explosive, verifiable information that can publicly challenge the Zionist-occupied Trump administration to deny it if untrue. They urge Kash Patel to deny the claim if it is false, noting that the information is highly relevant. They credit Mel, who they say was early with the reporting, and say they had heard rumors but sought verifiable proof before going on the limb to assert authenticity. The core assertion is that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The speaker clarifies that these were not VPNs routed through Israel, but 12 personal cell phone accounts opened in Israel. They claim these accounts were on the ground at Utah Valley University on September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was shot. The speaker states that the NSA knows this, Kash Patel knows this, and people in the current administration know that too, and are desperate to keep the information from the public. They question why the administration would want to suppress the information and why it would spook those at the top, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there would be nothing to hide. To anticipate counterarguments, the speaker plays devil’s advocate, noting that perhaps the cell phones belonged to exchange students or Israelis touring UVU that day, or that 12 American students had Israeli-based cell phones after returning from a summer abroad and wished to keep them running in Utah. They acknowledge they do not know the answer and express a desire to know, emphasizing the need to uncover why this information is being concealed and who those 12 Israeli cell phones belonged to. Throughout, the speaker refrains from evaluating the claims’ truth and simply presents the asserted facts and questions, urging accountability and transparency regarding the supposed Israeli cell phone presence and its connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They close by reiterating their dislike of secrets, especially when they pertain to the public figure’s death.

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."

Speaker 0 argues that Saint Anne’s Church in Toronto was not built in 1907–1908 as commonly claimed. He claims there was no documented architectural competition or widely documented evidence that William Howland won a contest, and he asserts there is no proof Howland had formal architectural training, yet the timeline credits him with drawing plans, delivering materials, and completing the structure in less than a year. He describes the building as containing two domed bell towers and being the only Canadian church built in the Byzantine style, with the interior hand-painted murals covering the entire dome, arches, and walls illustrating scenes from the old world. He questions the feasibility of a modern Byzantine-style church being built so quickly and implies the narrative is a “bedtime story for adults.” Speaker 0 notes a fire on 06/09/2024 that gutted the central dome and allegedly destroyed the building and its artifacts, and states they posted about it at the time, predicting that the authorities would be wrong. He then references a November 2025 clip reporting that eighteen months after the fire, police now say it may have been deliberately set, i.e., arson. He highlights that early statements claimed the fire was not suspicious, while later statements describe “evidence of multiple origins of the fire” and that there were audible gasps and tears in the room. He questions why there is zero footage from any angle showing how multiple origins could start simultaneously, and notes there were no suspects, arrests, or final cause reports released publicly. He contends that authorities reclassified the fire as suspected arson in November 2025, but maintains that there has been no resolution or accountability, and suggests the building’s destruction was deliberate. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 discuss the emotional impact and the shift in narrative. They mention that eighteen months after the fire, police say it may have been arson, and that the initial investigation did not appear suspicious. They acknowledge the shock within the congregation and the suggestion that it could have been a deliberate act, while expressing restraint about speculation. They note the absence of footage and the lack of a clear suspect, and they reference a statement from the Diocese of Toronto about evidence of multiple origins of the fire, which contradicts an earlier claim that no one was inside the building when the fire broke out. Speaker 0 questions why such palaces and structures could not be rebuilt quickly, noting that the insurance payout was reportedly around $9,000,000, yet the church now has about $7,000,000 left for a reconstruction project that would require more funding. He contrasts the claimed rapid construction in 1907–1908 with the current prolonged restoration, and suggests that the public narrative around these buildings—built in a single year, with hand-painted murals, and destroyed by arson—should be challenged. He argues that there is no documentation proving the single-year construction story and asserts that the narrative of ancient “palace” architecture is part of a broader pattern worldwide. He ends by speculating about an overarching conspiracy to erase such buildings from the timeline and invites the audience to consider whether those responsible want them fixed or erased.

Speaker 0 argues about K Ultra, saying they were sued and denied its existence, then said it exists but isn’t used anymore, and expresses disbelief in the denial. He claims a kid with access to guns or some knowledge was programmed, stating that Christy Noem, Cash Patel, Bongino, and others are reporting facts as they know them, while those who knew the truth are buried, burned, or dead, and suggests they are likely dead. He asserts this is what happens in Washington, says it’s too deep, and wishes for firing everyone to restart, but security concerns prevent that because dangerous people or terrorists could be let go. He says Cash Patel and Bongino are having a hard time due to this, and that he doesn’t care which side, but at their level that’s what happened. He claims the CIA said they don’t have this thing, then brought in, in court of law, that they have it but don’t use it anymore, and suggests somebody is using it and knows to contact these people. He recalls the American Taliban case and asserts that the kid in that case was programmed, noting that nobody talks about it anymore and suggesting it involved American parents and a Greek church. He describes Knoxville crime scenes with local police blocking off scenes, tarps, and keeping people away, and mentions his own sponsorship of legislation on cremation, implying laws may have been violated by quick cremation of the body, possibly eleven days after death, and that if an investigation was ongoing there would be rules about disposal of the body. He adds that he called a marine sniper who said he could have made the shot with iron sights without a scope and that the team got lucky; he references biblical notions about divine awareness of sparrows and hairs on heads, suggesting the sniper might believe it. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 is alleging that Thomas Crooks was groomed by some dark intel program, MK Ultra or otherwise, to commit an assassination on that day. Speaker 0 responds affirmatively, saying he has said so all along and is glad Tucker Carlson’s credibility has brought it out, noting that he often yells this stuff and is disregarded, but urges looking at history, the deep state, and the current state of the country. He claims 12% of the population voting leaves them vulnerable and that there are few people in position who could damage them like Trump, saying they are not after Trump but after “us,” and that Trump is standing in their way.

The speaker notes “the hospital where they took Charlie Kirk,” Tempanogos Regional Hospital, with a campus in Orem, Utah, and observes a spike in searches for “Tempanogos Regional Hospital” from BC around July 16, 2025, with a “07/20 anchor date” and the day before the shooting when someone said, “we should really make sure we know what the Tempanogos Regional Hospital is.” They emphasize they are “reporting the facts” and not drawing conclusions. They question the Utah medical examiner, saying the name is “Deidre Amaro” (or Deidra Amaro) and note, “an IP address originating in Israel decided they were very interested in Deidre Amaro,” with activity on 06/30/2025 in Israel, calling it strange and “not a common search.” They list surgeons at the Orem branch of Tempanogos Regional Hospital—“Steven Neelman,” “Robert Patterson, MD,” “Lee Trotter,” “Lee Patterson,” “Brian Gill,” “Richard Rasmussen”—searched around July 19–22, 2025, all from an “IP address originating in Israel.” The TalkingPointsUSA spokesperson claimed they spoke to the surgeon but didn’t give the name, and the speaker asks if the same IP looked up all surgeons, suggesting FBI/Utah State Police involvement and wondering if the searches relate to an assassination where a surgeon “declared Charlie Kirk a Superman and signed the death certificate.”

The speaker alleges that people in TPSA are trying to discredit anyone who questions “their narrative,” specifically related to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and claims that ongoing behavior “reinforced the fact that you’re part of the coverup.” They then focus on an “endowment” described as one of the “shadiest” entities in Turning Point’s structure. The speaker says Turning Point has “like six entities” and that these entities allow Turning Point to move money while “water down any sort of forensic accounting.” They claim Turning Point Endowment has zero employees, no websites, and supports no programs, while holding $69.9 million “as of their 990 filing in 2024.” The speaker says they traced every dollar in and out of the endowment and that, for years from 2017 through 2024, the endowment’s money comes from Turning Point USA, with “zero outside donors” providing funds. The speaker says TPUSA reported giving money to the endowment as one of its mission goals, and characterizes an endowment as a “war chest” to move money in during a “bad year,” which the speaker says occurred when TPUSA had deficits in 2023. The speaker claims the endowment owns real estate connected to Turning Point: they say it owns 4930 East Beverly Road (also identified as Turning Point Action’s address), 4940 Beverly Road (Turning Point USA’s address), and that the endowment’s letterhead address lists 4950 (next door). They state that Turning Point USA “deeded its own building to the endowment” as a “charitable contribution,” and that in 2021 it bought in cash the political arm’s real estate. They add that “the mystery donor is themselves,” which they say they found through deed filings. They describe a “rent math” analysis: the speaker says that for three straight years, Turning Point’s charitable program donation to the endowment was for “occupancy and depreciation” and the upkeep of Turning Point’s own buildings, matching dollar-for-dollar. They state that the endowment has not had an independent audit and that, on their 990 forms, the relevant audit box is “always no” for the endowment; they add that TPUSA was only “no in 2024.” They provide figures: four years of building costs totaling $949,000, with rent collected back totaling $232,000, and claim that the remaining amount went to leasing those buildings “to themselves, and the political arm.” They also say the rent line lists rent as zero and that the speaker characterizes this as “penalty of perjury” if false. The speaker further claims timing and purchasing activity: on August 1, 2025, they say Turning Point Endowment bought a third building for $3.85 million, which they claim would not show up on 990s until 2027, and they say the purchase occurs “40 days before Charlie Kirk is assassinated.” The speaker also alleges that on August 1, 2025, a “Doge-like assessment” was requested 30 days before the assassination. They claim additional financial activity: in 2023, when TPUSA had a deficit and assets fell 41%, the endowment sent “500K” while putting “some $9 million” into private equity, which they say cannot be exited for 10 years. They state the private equity fund names and fund managers are “secret,” and claim $565,000 was paid in investment fees over four years to someone not named on other forms. They also describe March 2025 filing activity: they say three Turning Point entities filed within a 72-hour period, and that “buried inside of that” the endowment “became five,” adding new names including Justin Olson (CFO, previously Arizona State Corporate Commissioner) and Frank Carney. They conclude: “This endowment, in my opinion, exists to hide money.”

The speaker challenges the credibility of the narrative about Charlie Kirk’s incident and points to security footage to raise questions. They reference a security detail member wearing “meta AI shades” who appears to be filming. According to the speaker, when Charlie is hit, the security person turns on the shades, films, and then, as chaos unfolds with a crowd rushing the stage, carries out a handoff. The speaker describes a handoff occurring to a gentleman in a shirt. They claim that this is the moment when someone takes something off Charlie and hands it to the man in the black shirt, who then runs off. The speaker asserts that the item being handed off is the “laugh mic” that allegedly contained an explosive device, implying that the security detail’s first priority was to remove the suspicious object from Charlie and pass it to the other person rather than ensuring Charlie’s safety. The speaker emphasizes that the security detail “knew exactly what to do” and questions how the person receiving the item would know what to do in such chaotic moments, suggesting coordinated movement. They argue that the security actions undermine the official narrative about Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson, indicating that the FBI should be questioned and accountability demanded from the FBI and this administration. In summary, the speaker uses the footage to claim that the security team’s behavior—specifically the meta AI shades operator filming, the rapid handoff of an object from Charlie to a man in black, and the subsequent actions—casts doubt on the established story and points to potential coordination and a failure to prioritize Charlie’s immediate safety. The call is for greater scrutiny and accountability of the FBI and the administration.

Charlie Kirk is described as one of President Trump’s closest advisers who actively advocated against a war with Iran. He was in the Oval Office in the lead-up to the twelve-day war. The speaker notes they weren’t particularly close, but Charlie was very gracious when the speaker was running for Congress and was supportive. The last time the speaker saw Charlie Kirk on Earth was in June in the West Wing, in the stairwell, where Charlie, upon greeting, looked the speaker in the eye and, very loudly in a small, tight space, said, “Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.” Charlie then walked off and is believed to have entered the Oval Office. The speaker emphasizes that Charlie Kirk, a close adviser who vocally urged rethinking relations with Israel and opposing war with Iran, was suddenly publicly assassinated, and there are questions about the lack of ability to investigate further. The speaker says it’s a data point that needs examination and questions what it means to say that people are not allowed to ask questions about the incident. The speaker mentions that they were part of an investigation involving the National Counterterrorism Center, but they were stopped from continuing to investigate. The FBI stated they stopped and turned everything over to Utah State Authorities because the matter would go to trial and was very sensitive, but the speaker asserts there was still information to look into and linkage for further investigation that could not be pursued. The speaker clarifies they are not drawing conclusions about who was responsible or the exact circumstances, but asserts there were unanswered questions. There is reference to “text messages that have been made public” showing that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from pro-Israel donors. It is reiterated that Charlie was advocating to President Trump against the war with Iran. In summary, the speaker presents Charlie Kirk as a former close adviser who urged restraint on a potential Iran war and a reevaluation of relationships with Israel, describes a sudden assassination with restricted inquiry, and cites a halted investigation by national security entities, noting publicized pressure from pro-Israel donors as part of the context.

The speaker discusses the FBI's "failed investigation" of the January 6th pipe bomb, alleging the FBI has no leads or suspects, has lost information and evidence, and that the Secret Service deleted all texts from January 6th. The speaker claims Steve D'Antuono said cell phone data that could have been used to find the bomber was corrupted. The speaker states that the FBI does not have video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The speaker asks if confidential human sources were involved in the pipe bomb incident. The other speaker responded they would have to refresh themselves on the information gathered to date. The speaker suggests getting the information public before the election.

The speaker is part of a senate bipartisan investigation into an assassination attempt. According to the speaker, the Secret Service and FBI are dragging their feet and not providing requested documents, such as 302s and interview transcriptions. Documents that are provided are heavily redacted and delivered the day of the interview, making them unusable. The speaker believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. They claim releasing the body for cremation before autopsy or toxicology reports further drives suspicion and conspiracy theories.

The speaker, who claims a background with the CIA and NSA and now runs a corporate intelligence firm, discusses an investigation into TPUSA (Turning Point USA). They present that on 09/02/2025 Charlie Kirk sent an internal memo announcing Justin Streiff as Chief Operating Officer, stating Streiff would lead a “doge like” effort into TPUSA’s financials and operations, described as an internal audit without triggering red flags. Eight days later, the speaker claims Charlie Kirk was murdered, and within the week Eric Kirk was announced as CEO, with the audit and the “doge like effort” never materializing. TPUSA is identified as a 501(c)(3) with public financials, enabling the speaker to review them. The speaker positions themselves as an independent investigator who followed the money to look for fraud or red flags, noting that a key part of such an audit is examining vendors and consultants. They focus on three entities: Lion Rock Ventures, Cloverstone, and GSM Strategies. The speaker asserts that these three LLCs shared a director and an address, and that Stacy Sheridan is the common individual involved in all of them. Sheridan is described as the TPUSA senior advancement employee, earning upwards of $200,000 annually to perform the same function allegedly outsourced to these consulting firms. The speaker implies that Sheridan owned the consulting businesses. A further red flag highlighted is the formation and quick dissolution of Lion Rock Ventures (formed in 2019 and dissolved about a year and a half later) and Cloverstone (formed and dissolved while Sheridan was performing the same job for TPUSA). The nine ninety forms for these entities allegedly show directors and Sheridan’s position sign conflict of interest forms, which the speaker claims indicates a conflict of interest given Sheridan’s dual roles. The firms are said to have generated nearly $3,000,000 across four years. The speaker mentions a $350,000 payment that is frequently discussed in relation to these deals, stating that they found it in the Form 990 (9/90) filings and that they will discuss it in part two. The transcript ends with “They do” and promises a continuation with a full write-up on a Substack channel and a new podcast next week, inviting support.

This is the Israeli company that went and grabbed the device or whatever it is allegedly. Watch Charlie Kirk's right side of his t shirt. Watch the lavalier lapel mic. Do you see it explode? That is the explosion from Charlie Kirk's lavalier lapel mic. First, we had exploding pagers. Now we have exploding mics. That proves that all of the activity came from the mic that Charlie Kirk was wearing. That's the assassin. We have video now from Destiny that shows the handoff of this remote detonator. Tyler Robinson did not kill Charlie Kirk.

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.

Speaker 0 introduces the topic of Israel allegedly having influence over the US government and mentions that Israel assassinated JFK, pointing to William Cooper as the source who was also assassinated by Israel. Speaker 0 references Cooper’s book Behold a Pale Horse and notes that Cooper was the first to obtain original footage from a CIA whistleblower showing who shot Kennedy and how they shot Kennedy. He says the media’s clips started at a cropped frame, and that Cooper’s release prompted further questions. Speaker 1 explains that the assassin was the driver in the car with Kennedy, visible in a film with public help. He brings the film, saying it shows the motorcade on Elm Street in front of the Book Depository Building, Kennedy having been shot in the throat, Jacqueline pulling Kennedy toward him in shock, and the driver turning around with a pistol in his left hand, firing over his right shoulder and shooting the president in the head. Speaker 2 asks for a repeat and then the duo watches the film. Speaker 1 identifies the driver as William Greer, noting he was a secret service agent. He describes the weapon as an electrically operated gas-powered assassination pistol built especially for the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting there is no puff of smoke. Speaker 2 questions whether the weapon is indeed a pistol in the lower right corner of the frame. Speaker 1 confirms it is an air-operated pistol (pneumatic) and claims it fired an exploding pellet that injected shellfish toxin into the president’s brain, so that if the pellet’s explosion did not kill him, the toxin would. He states that he read all of this in the documents. Speaker 0 asks what type of weapon was used to assassinate JFK and references the 1963 time frame, saying that intelligence agencies would have such weapons. He then questions whether intelligence agencies could have used such weapons to assassinate Charlie Kirk. He suggests listening to Jack Posobiec and others who are “carrying water for this administration,” implying time will tell.

The speaker believes the individual involved in a recent political attack did not act alone, citing a lack of requisite skill and the media's quick dismissal. They question if the individual was honey-trapped by a foreign entity and criticize the FBI's handling of the situation, including the rapid cremation of the body and the claim that the individual acted alone. Senator Ron Johnson also finds the situation suspicious, particularly the rush to dispose of evidence. He highlights the fact that the body was cremated before autopsy and toxicology reports were released. He notes the FBI immediately declared the individual acted alone without a thorough investigation. The speaker points out the FBI's history of spying and questions why, if the individual acted alone, the FBI doesn't release the data they likely possess. They cite a counter sniper's concern over the scrubbing of the roof and question the need for a high-powered attorney if the case is straightforward. Senator Johnson states that the Secret Service and FBI are stonewalling the senate investigation, providing heavily redacted documents and delaying transcribed interviews. The speaker concludes that the agencies are hiding something, as transparency would dispel conspiracy theories.

"Charlie Kirk's assassination has deleted evidence that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson haven't mentioned once." "This guy told the cops to arrest him so the shooter could have more time to get away." "This guy was deployed for 09/11, deployed against Obama, for George Bush, and personally worked with senators and US congressmen." "And he personally admitted it, and they wiped everything, but I downloaded it just before. George Zinn," "These donors like Manafort, Berman, Ronald Weiser, they manipulate elections, create countries, and have personally admitted to taking money from all of these countries." "Zinn, the patsy, is an example of an actor they use." "I have a full twenty seven minute video going over exactly what happened, why people like Candace Owens might be lying to you, and the archive podcast link in bio."

The conversation centers on a controversial, conspiratorial claim that Charlie Kirk’s death was not caused by a rifle shot but by an exploding lavalier microphone containing a shaped charge, a military-style operation allegedly planned and executed with broad involvement and cover-up elements. Key points and assertions heard in the exchange: - The speakers reject the official narrative of a lone shooter, Tyler Robinson, and insist Charlie Kirk was killed by an exploding microphone rather than a 30-06 rifle shot. They describe the supposed weapon as a Rode lavalier microphone whose battery and circuit board were propelled by an internal shaped charge, causing a neck wound and brain damage. - They argue that evidence at the scene—shrapnel, the microphone’s shattered front, a battery and circuit board ejecting from the wound, and a distinctive neck injury pattern—cannot be reconciled with a rifle entry wound. They claim blood on the scene came from Charlie Kirk’s brain, not from the heart or circulatory system, and that the blood’s appearance and pooling indicate immediate brain trauma rather than post-injury bleeding. - There is repeated emphasis on the “shirt deformation,” necklace snapping, and the presence of gas/plume around the collar as indications of a gas-expulsion event consistent with a high-energy explosion near the microphone, not a ballistic impact. - John Bray (Speaker 1) provides technical demonstrations and plans to reproduce the neck wound and shirt deformation via simulations and physical reconstructions. He discusses mapping movement with AI to show that the most intense movement centers around the microphone, and he argues that only a high-energy explosive could generate the observed energy transfer and rapid tissue response. - Bray describes reconstructing the microphone internals in CAD, evaluating the possibility of a shaped charge, and reconfiguring the microphone case to fit a charge without compromising microphone function. He mentions needing access to high-energy explosives and discusses potential sources, such as oil-and-gas fracture practices that employ shaped charges. - The discussion includes descriptions of how the battery and circuit board allegedly exited the neck wound, and how the neck wound’s rectangular shape and delayed bleeding could be explained by a blunt-force impact from a blast, with the battery briefly plugging the wound before exiting. - Bray asserts that the presence of shrapnel from the microphone in the SUV and on clothing, plus the trajectory of a magnetic clasp across the body, supports a single-source energy event around the microphone rather than a rifle shot. He claims the trajectory and timing make rifle-based explanations untenable. - The host and Bray discuss the roles of various people connected to Turning Point USA and alleged participants in a larger conspiracy. They mention Fort Huachuca and UVU as places linked to pre-event planning, and reference meetings and conversations involving high-profile figures and politicians. - There is extensive talk about the public reception and challenges to their theory, including the difficulty of reproducing the exact trauma and wound dynamics, and the claim that mainstream or official narratives suppress or ignore the “truth” they see in the evidence. - Bray mentions ongoing work to replicate the neck wound within about 30 days and notes that reproducing the full explosive event is more complex, requiring careful selection and sourcing of appropriate high-energy materials. He emphasizes that even without replicating the exact explosion, reproducing the neck wound and shirt movement would be strong evidence against the rifle narrative. - The discussion veers into related political and media insinuations, including references to Epstein, the “pedophile cabal,” and Trump as an FBI informant, which are used to reinforce a sense of systemic conspiracy and media distrust. They propose public-facing dissemination of their findings and invite support, including promoting Bray’s work and related self-sufficiency projects. - Toward the end, the speakers discuss the possibility that Tyler Robinson may have been recruited or used as a patsy, with Bray suggesting he might have been promised online notoriety or other incentives, while insisting that Robinson is not the sole killer and that the microphone theory better accounts for the observed evidence. Overall, the transcript presents a tightly woven narrative that disputes the official account of Charlie Kirk’s death, contending that a high-energy explosive integrated into a microphone caused the fatal injury and that the visible physical effects—shirt movement, neck wound, collar gas, shrapnel, and blood patterns—are inconsistent with a gunshot wound. It foregrounds technical schematics, CAD reconstructions, and AI-based motion analysis as the basis for proving the claim, while describing a broader, conspiratorial project to expose a supposed government-orchestrated cover-up.

The speaker discusses a series of alarming claims related to political violence and distrust in U.S. institutions. They reference online activity on social media and a book that appeared prior to what is described as the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The speaker states that the book “was put up, I believe, twenty four hours or within a certain period of time before he was assassinated,” and they recall seeing it but are unsure if there was any follow-up. Turning to broader issues of trust, the speaker asserts that skepticism toward the government, and specifically agencies like the FBI, does not arise from nowhere. They frame this distrust as grounded in “decades of the federal government and elected officials' failures and actually being transparent and honest with the American people.” In their view, there has been a history of corruption within the FBI, described as “corruptness that exists within the Department of the FBI previously,” which they juxtapose with references to “the deep state individuals in various branches of government that have engaged in coups against the American people.” The speaker then suggests a possible topic for discussion, stating, “We can talk about Kennedy if you want,” implying that discussions about government overreach or conspiratorial actions could include the Kennedy assassination as a point of reference. Overall, the points highlighted are: (1) a book about the assassination of Charlie Kirk appearing online shortly before the alleged event, with uncertainty about follow-up; (2) a claim that distrust in government institutions stems from long-standing failures and lack of transparency by federal authorities; (3) allegations of FBI corruption and deep-state actors across branches of government who have engaged in coups against the American people; and (4) an invitation to discuss related topics such as Kennedy.

Discussion centers on claims about the Charlie Kirk assassination, including a side shot. The presenter says "there's now a shooter on the roof" and an eyewitness states the shooter was "wearing tactical gear" and described "the exact type of weapon... a two two three round." A bystander video shows "somebody on the roof" and the eyewitness asserts the shooter was "highly trained, like a highly trained assassin" and that the footage's metadata "begins at 12:22 and goes into 12/23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." The speaker adds the shooter "looked like a foreign agent" and "not jeans." Another claim: "the FBI's official story is false" with video of an "entry and exit wound," though another participant says "it's not blood splatter. That's literally his necklace getting snapped off and flying over the back of his neck." The discussion concludes with "Cash should resign."

The transcript asserts that Pete Hegseth’s private aircraft, tail number 99Dash0404, with a special air mission call sign, was involved in activities tied to official business for the president or the vice president. On September 8, two days before Charlie Kirk’s murder, the aircraft landed at an air force base three miles from Fort Huachuca, with a special air mission call sign. Mitch Snow is quoted as reporting that Erica Kirk and Cabot Phillips were seen in the lobby of the Candlewood Inn and Suites on Fort Huachuca on September 8, and that on September 9 he saw Brian Harpole, who has a security firm located about eleven minutes from Fort Huachuca, leaving a meeting with people described as VIPs or connected to the US government. The claim continues that on September 9, Pete Hegseth’s plane, 99Dash0404, departed Fort Huachuca, went to Fort Bliss, then returned to the DC area. The transcript states that, according to flight trackers, the aircraft operated under the special air mission SAM702 and was involved in activities at Fort Huachuca in the days leading up to Charlie Kirk’s death. It also references video footage and photographs allegedly showing Pete Hegseth in San Juan meeting with government officials about narco-terrorism, suggesting a discrepancy between those reports and the Fort Huachuca activities. Thirty days after Kirk’s murder, on 10/10/2025, the same aircraft, 99Dash0404, reportedly appeared again in the air under the call sign SAM112, flying from DC to Fort Huachuca and back to DC, with a purported sightseeing detour over Eastern Tennessee. The transcript claims the AES plant in Eastern Tennessee, an explosives manufacturing facility with a Department of Defense contract for a small amount of explosives (described as enough for a shaped charge for a weaponized microphone), was destroyed in a blast that killed all workers; 23,000 pounds of explosives allegedly went off. The narrative links this event to the same aircraft’s route, saying the plane descended over the AES plant on its way back to DC. The speaker connects the AES explosion to Charlie Kirk’s death, claiming the device involved could be a weaponized lavalier microphone, and mentions people and institutions tied to Fort Huachuca, including Laurie Fransky’s anti-EMP technology work and references to Erica Kirk’s involvement in a film on Fort Huachuca depicting an assassin on a rooftop with a rifle. The speaker states these observations are verifiable via flight trackers and asserts that these are not conspiracy theories, inviting verification. The overall assertion is that Pete Hegseth’s plane, operating under special air mission calls SAM702 and later SAM112, was present at Fort Huachuca before Kirk’s death and later diverged to observe the AES plant explosion, implying a connection or coordination.

- Mitch testified that he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers, and he is taking a great personal risk in going public. - Fort Huachuca is described as the home to the only unmanned aircraft training center in the United States. The discussion connects Fort Huachuca to drone activity and to manned aircraft capable of releasing and retrieving drones, including the Bombardier Global 65,000 military jet with tail number N1098 Lima, which allegedly performed nine-eleven level maneuvers on the day Charlie Kirk was killed. - It is claimed that Fort Huachuca is also the military’s only site in the country that tests EMP blasts, electromagnetic pulse blasts that can disable telecommunications, and that these EMP blasts can be carried out by drones, such as the drone reported around UVU at the time Charlie Kirk was killed, where people on the ground said their cell phone service was disrupted. - The speaker suggests that, given Mitch’s information and previous discussions, the Fort Huachuca angle may be the explanation for what happened, implying that an EMP carried out by a drone from Fort Huachuca could be involved. - Lori Fransvi V is described as the founder of E3 Tech, a defense contractor that claims to produce EMP-proof technology for the military and that earns millions of dollars in government contracts. E3 Tech is said to be closely linked to Israel under the guise of allied defense contracting and cooperation. - It is stated that E3 Tech’s EMP-proof technology would have to pass through Fort Huachuca, making Fort Huachuca the lifeblood of E3 Tech’s work. - The narrative asserts a backstory about Erica Kirk’s mother, Lori Fransky, portraying her as a hardworking single mom who fought and clawed to get by, moving to Arizona because of her work. The speaker says, given what is now known, that Lori Fransky didn’t just have to be in Arizona for work, but had to be at Fort Huachuca, and that Erica also had to be there because of her mother’s defense contract. - It is claimed that Lori Fransby/Fransky’s parents are connected to Fort Huachuca as well: Kent Fransby with ties to Raytheon, Israel, LTD, and the Iron Dome, and involved in defense contracts with the same military base where Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk before Charlie Kirk’s assassination. - The overall assertion is that Fort Huachuca is central to Erica Kirk, to Ken Fransby, to Lori Fransby, and to Erica Kirk’s connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination.