TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker presents audio evidence of at least 2 shooters targeting Trump and the crowd, debunking the lone gunman theory. The first 3 shots were from a different location and weapon than the following 5 or 6 shots. Analysis suggests 2 distinct weapons were used, with echoes indicating shooter positions. The sniper shot was separate. The conclusion is that the lone shooter theory is false, suggesting a coordinated operation. The speaker expresses concern for safety but believes those responsible for the botched operation may face consequences.

We focus on the area where 3 victims were shot in the bleachers. Bullets came from Thomas Crooks' location, grazing President Trump's ear and hitting a spectator. Video evidence shows the first shot coinciding with Trump's speech. Trump is hit, falls, and more shots follow. 7 or 8 shots were fired, injuring spectators unintentionally. The bullets hit near a forklift, causing a hydraulic hose to burst.

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."

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

There was a lone shooter, and we had grainy footage of somebody jumping off a roof; it was established there was one person we were looking for, and that gave us the shooting scene at a spot about 140 yards away with roof indents. "where that shot was allegedly taken from with the weapon allegedly used, is a 30 aught six, the wound is entirely inconsistent with that weapon in that spot. It really just couldn't have happened exactly like they said. This is a very easy through and through round. This is not there's really no bones in the way." "And the way ballistics works is is bullets go in a straight line until and unless something acts on them. ... there was no exit wound." "Right? So what do we do with that information? And the only thing I can think to do with that information is to posit that this round shot at this angle would have gone through and through the neck easy. It probably would have gone through five necks in a row."

"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."

A dark figure is seen at the top as President Trump speaks. About four seconds after shots are fired, this person steps out. The speaker says they heard one shooter in the water tower and one by the fence. They screamed, "It's the sniper," and states the sniper was firing down toward the water tower. A gentleman behind the speaker, who was one seat to the right, could see the sharpshooter behind Trump. He said the sharpshooter shot to the left and killed the gentleman in the water tower.

A congressional task force surveyed the site where Trump was almost assassinated, while another group held a forum in DC investigating the shooting. A neighbor of the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, said his family is an enigma and she doesn't think he acted alone. Crooks' father hired top criminal lawyers, raising questions about how he could afford them and why they were needed if he was unaware of his son's actions. Crooks was cremated days after the shooting. Congressman Corey Mills says the Secret Service and FBI are stalling the investigation, delivering heavily redacted documents. A whistleblower told Senator Josh Hawley that Secret Service headquarters told agents not to request extra manpower for the rally. Five Secret Service agents were placed on leave after the shooting. Local police set aside radios for the Secret Service, but they were never picked up. Congressman Mike Walt finds it hard to believe Crooks acted alone, questioning how he learned to build IEDs and install remote detonators. The FBI cracked two of Crooks' three encrypted apps but won't reveal the contents. Some social media messages may have been written by an older family member. Congressman Mills said that the Secret Service refused offers of communication platforms and a surveillance drone. He believes the Secret Service is setting things up for failure by not utilizing available assets and resources. He says it's either criminal gross negligence or purposeful intent, and that the Secret Service has a culture issue.

The secret service sniper quickly identified a threat when he noticed smoke and flames from a gun. Within five seconds, he took a precise shot from approximately 400 yards away, hitting the shooter who was 130 yards distant but on the opposite side of the field. His extraordinary marksmanship prevented a potentially disastrous situation, as many more people could have been harmed if he hadn't acted swiftly and accurately.

John Collin created a video showing a bullet's trajectory that suggests it would have been very difficult for the round to travel the path it did if it came from Thomas Crooks. The speaker suggests that the investigators should bring in John Collin and see his evidence. The speaker believes that any worthwhile investigation should examine all theories, including those that some might consider conspiratorial, and then try to disprove or debunk them, or see if they hold water. The speaker reiterates that John Collin is someone the investigators should bring in to examine the video evidence.

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.

Three victims were injured by gunfire in the bleachers. Bullets came from Thomas Crooks, hitting President Trump's ear and a spectator. Video evidence shows the first shot coinciding with Trump speaking. More shots followed, injuring spectators. The gunfire caused a spectator's death. Bullets hit near a forklift, bursting a hydraulic hose.

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.

Prohibited items at Trump rallies include backpacks, bags, bicycles, firearms, and any potential safety hazards. At 5:10 PM, snipers first spot Crooks near the venue. At 6:11 PM, President Trump is shot in the face. Snipers observe Crooks with a backpack and range finder, moving northeast just before the shooting. Despite witnesses yelling about a man with a gun in a sniper position, Crooks was not apprehended. The discussion raises questions about what constitutes a threat. A backpack or range finder alone is not deemed threatening, but the presence of a man with a gun targeting the President should be. Ultimately, Crooks was only neutralized after the shooting occurred.

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.

The shooter was identified as a potential suspect, but by the time they were located, they were on the rooftop and able to fire at the former president. The Secret Service director was allegedly instructed by the administration and the DHS secretary to keep quiet or risk losing her job. One speaker has heard from the Secret Service director, but not publicly. Another speaker states they would fire the Secret Service director for not being visible and transparent with the American people, regardless of the story. They believe the handling of the situation by briefing only Milwaukee was poorly executed.

There are at least two different weapons being fired, with the first three shots coming from a different location than the following shots. The sonic cracks indicate all shots were directed towards Trump and the audience, ruling out the lone shooter theory as false. The hypothesis suggests two shooters, possibly three, with the first three shots likely coming from inside the building. Shots 1, 2, 4, and 5 are believed to have been fired by crooks, while shots 3 and 6 remain puzzling. Echoes and timing discrepancies support the theory of multiple shooters.

Zeb Boykin analyzes a shooting using four of nine camera angles, noting “there’s nine camera angles” and “we’re only gonna use four of them” before revisiting camera1. He states “the FBI lies to us” and limits discussion to ballistics. He claims a frame before impact shows the “bullet” at Charlie Kirk, and in camera2 “an exit wound in the neck” with “the earpiece” dislodged and “the cord pulling the shirt” as the mic is drawn by the shockwave. He says “the earpiece is not body armor” and dismisses a “reflection” in camera4. He mentions a possible muzzle flash (grainy) and discusses a temporary cavity, yaw, and bullet tumbling. He estimates a smaller caliber, possibly nine millimeter, and suggests a base-of-skull hit causing instantaneous incapacitation, not a rifle. He concludes, “The FBI is lying to you,” and, “This cannot happen if the shooter is shooting on the roof straight on.”

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.

The speaker analyzes the iconic photo and argues that a bullet cannot be captured frame-by-frame at 30 frames per second; at 1,500–3,000 feet per second, a single frame would show the bullet moving about 45 feet, producing only a streak, not a frozen dot. He rejects claims of a bullet frozen in mid-air. Regarding the moment near the neck, he says there was no blood and that the second of impact could have been a necklace exploding, not an earpiece, and questions how a chain could snap and blow back over the ears. He notes camera shutter speeds of 1/164,000th or 1/120,000th of a second and argues a NYT photographer would have needed such settings to capture the moment, which he sees as improbably random. He concludes no one caught a bullet moving in Charlie Kirk’s vicinity.

One person was killed, and two others are critically injured, including former President Trump, who reported being grazed by a bullet. Attention is drawn to the shooter, who was positioned on the edge of a building. Visuals show the shooter and the distance from where he fired. The building's size is emphasized, along with the small scale of the police vehicle and bystanders. A lamp on the building is examined, revealing discrepancies in its appearance from different angles. The claim is made that the lamp seen from the back of the building does not match the original, suggesting something is amiss. This inconsistency raises concerns about the situation.

"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."

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.

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