TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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

A social media account possibly linked to the shooter in 2019-2020 showed over 700 comments with anti-Semitic, anti-immigration, and violent political themes. The investigative team is verifying the account to confirm its connection to the shooter. Despite the shooter being deceased, the investigation continues urgently.

- "earliest it was 12:22 that the individual ran across, set up, took the shots." - "The metadata begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." - "I saw the shots. I had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out." - "this person looked to him like a foreign agent." - "this person was dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask." - "this is the wrong person. I observed this person with my eyes. You have the complete wrong description." - "the gun that the FBI found was not the gun that he saw, that the gun that he saw was smaller."

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.

I think I found the shooter. This guy with the white hat starts it by creating signals—“touches the bill of his hat, and then he touches his ear.” The guy that shot Charlie is over on this side, and he’s seen by others who move to block him, with one man “rubbing his right arm” as he steps in front. “Watch this”—the background figure shifts, and the white-shirt man is “holding the gun right there.” If I go frame by frame, the moment the black-clad man moves his arm out, the white-shirt man “lifts his right elbow” and “shoots it.” His hand goes back, and then Charlie gets hit. “Watch the gun shoot right now”—the gun fires, Charlie is hit. “It’s clear as day.” The black-shirt man shows the white-shirt arm; “pop, bang.” Oh my god.

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."

We have a situation with at least one suspect down, but there may be more. The shots fired were all headshots, indicating a targeted attack. There’s a lot of focus on the scene, and it appears that the shots were aimed directly at the victims. Regarding the claims of conspiracies or multiple gunmen, there have been no findings to support these assertions. The only identified shooter is Mr. Paddock.

There’s a theory that 'he got shot with a palm pistol from the side or that there was a guy giving hand signals to kill Kirk in front of the livestream.' The event was livestreamed, and the speaker says their 'master plan in front of an audience of thousands that are all filming in front of a livestream was to have the shot caller next to Kill him. Kill him now. Take the shot now.' They question whether the thousands in attendance would 'recall I hope no one notices this,' asking, 'like, that was their plan?' The plan allegedly included 'a palm pistol like this' and to choreograph it 'in front of all the cameras' to be 'kill him. Kill him.' The speaker adds, 'the level of retardation' and notes 'schizos' as context for why 'no one wants to say it.'

"all these Internet experts are sure that it was a professional hit against Charlie Kirk." "Firstly, professionals are trained to aim for the center of scene mass." "Neither the center of scene mass or the head was hit." "The round landed here from what I saw." "The shooter got lucky." "Secondly, 200 yards is not that big a distance to make." "and there was even an exfil roof." "If you really wanna analyze these sorts of situations, team, stop looking at the shot." "Check out the planning, check out the prep, and even the exfil route." "Time will tell, I guess."

The speaker 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.”

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.”

The speaker knew the suspect and said he was bullied almost every day and was an outcast who sat alone at lunch. Kids would target him because they thought it was funny. The speaker didn't want to say this provoked the suspect, but stated that you never know. The speaker said the suspect was a loner because he was quiet, but he was bullied so much. He was made fun of for the way he dressed or his appearance. The suspect would regularly wear hunting gear and always have a mask, even well after COVID.

"holy shit, that is the bullet." "It matches the exit wound, it also matches the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." "I needed another angle just to see if this was actually fact trying to get as much info as I could before I posted anything" "from this looking at Google Earth and drawing a line from where I believe the shooter was, his tent being set up in the middle of that triangle area would appear that the shooter was up here somewhere." "That's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "Somewhere on those stairs would be my tip, and if the FBI aren't looking there, I don't know why."

Speaker 0 explains that, on Spotify or Apple, the situation is that he’s in his room with no bullets in it, but he’s practicing firing a weapon. He notes that there are multiple videos like this in the person’s online history, which the speaker possesses. The speaker reiterates that the online history shows similar content, ending with the fragment “His online history shows,” indicating there is more content that is not provided in the transcript.

The shooter was on a vulnerable roof identified the day before. Two counter sniper teams were present, with one not needing approval to shoot. NBC News reported that previous protocols were not followed. Translation: The shooter was on a vulnerable roof that was identified the day before. Two counter sniper teams were present, with one not needing approval to shoot. NBC News reported that previous protocols were not followed.

- About a week and a half ago, a video referenced Candace’s tweet claiming a nine-eleven-style attack would occur in December. That attack allegedly happened, with two mass shootings within 24 hours: Brown University (two dead, eight in critical condition) and Bondi Beach, Australia (12 unalive, including one of the shooters), making Bondi Australia’s deadliest shooting in three decades. - The speaker asserts these are false flag SIOP events, meaning the events are real and victims real, but the behind-the-scenes actors are nefarious. The speaker claims two Brown University survivors were also survivors in two separate shootings in California and Florida, suggesting a pattern of repeat survivors. - The speaker notes mayor Brett Smiley of Rhode Island (the Brown shooting location) appears in Google Trends searches 24 hours before the shooting, purportedly in connection to Israel. The shooter at Bondi Beach, Navid Akram, allegedly has a profile that shows up in Google Trends before the event in Tel Aviv, China, and Cyprus. - A witness at Bondi Beach said that four policemen approached the scene but did not shoot back. The speaker questions why police did not fire. - Another survivor, who previously survived an attack in October in Israel, reportedly had time to take a selfie during the Bondi massacre. That survivor’s name is Arshin Trevinski. - The events allegedly occurred on the first day of Hanukkah, December 14, the same date as Sandy Hook, according to the speaker. - The speaker also highlights a 43-year-old fruit shop owner named Armin l Armin who stopped one of the Bondi Beach gunmen, countering mainstream media narratives by indicating the stop involved a Muslim individual stopping other Muslims. The speaker claims the mainstream media narrative counters this claim. - The speaker states there is much more to break down and promotes a breakdown on their YouTube channel, the Maverick Approach, and invites viewers to share their thoughts in the comments.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not a lone shooter, citing messages they've received. The speaker questions why many Americans find the situation "doesn't add up," listing details such as the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone use, and being spotted with a rangefinder. The speaker, identifying as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. They ask if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt, imprison, and depict the target as "a modern day Hitler." The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, and if they received reports of anything "fishy" there, such as silverware or trash. They ask if the home was extremely clean, "almost like a medical lab," stating that's what they are hearing.

“professional hit against Charlie Kirk.” Yet: “professionals are trained to aim for the center of scene mass.” Neither the center of scene mass nor the head was hit; “The round landed here from what I saw.” The shooter got lucky; “That's not that professional.” At 200 yards, “not that big a distance to make,” and a civilian hunter with a decent rifle and scope will “bring down deer at 200 yards daily easily.” The crucial part is the prep: “serious planning and recce work” to get a long rifle into a rooftop with a perfect line of sight, plus an “exfil roof.” The shooter could move from rooftop to rooftop and exfil away from the scene, showing a level of professionalism and capability beyond what “fixated persons” usually have. Therefore: focus on planning, prep, and exfil route, not the shot. Time will tell, I guess.

A social media account possibly linked to the shooter in 2019-2020 had over 700 comments with anti-Semitic, anti-immigration, and politically violent themes. The investigative team is verifying if the account belonged to the shooter. Despite the shooter being deceased, the investigation continues urgently.

Speaker questions the narrative: 'random trans shooter' on the roof who 'took this shot' and was 'undetected' because the FBI released video footage. He asks if this means 'he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior' and wonders 'why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?' He questions the lack of footage—'why don't we have any images of this kid leaving the school?' and 'video footage of this kid jumping off the roof?' He says, 'he runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods' and argues, 'you definitely wouldn't carry the rifle with you' to blend in, citing 'an American flag shirt on.' He references 'criminal minds' and BAU, concluding, 'This is weird, guys. This is freaking weird.'

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.

"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."

And look at this woman. That's the one that gets the shot done. Okay? I'm gonna make myself even smaller so that you can see more. I'm gonna play it. So do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last ten years? He puts it down. "Too many." When he brings it up again, he talks to someone, He's gonna pull out the phone again, and I'm sorry. You're gonna have to see this. So Do mind do you know how It's gonna be horrible. There you go. That's your sign. Go again. Over the last ten years, counseling or not cottage gang violence. What? You see how he did you guys see that? He tried at first and missed. Watch these hands. That's perfect trajectory for the fucking bullet. Fuck. I hate that. Ten years. Counting or not counting gang violence. Boom. Boom. Misses. Then he gets him. And you see how he reacts when he gets him too. Like, he jumps. Instantly, the woman is there to cover exactly that phone that it's a weapon.