reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker says they have a confirmed source about Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest and notes his friend's dad is a surgeon. "Carly Carly Trik arrived. He was hit in the chest, which is what we saw. It caved in part of his chest." "The bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck." "There was no side shooter, guys." "The main shooter we're looking at came from the front, and I don't think it was that Tyler dude." "I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof." He states: "Look at all this stuff that the FBI has told us." He adds: "I personally think that there is somebody much farther back than that. I think that dude on the roof is a patsy." He concludes: "Please do not send me any more videos of any other angles of this being a side shooter."

Speaker highlights clips with a red circle, saying, "holy shit, that is the bullet. It matches the exit wound, it also matches the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." He adds, "in that video you can see the same what appears to be the bullet coming down and it does line up with the actual gunshot itself," and, "you can see something go down into the back right hand side of, of Charlie." Using Google Earth, he states, "his tent being set up in the middle of that triangle area would appear that the shooter was up here somewhere. That's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "It all makes sense to me, pretty crazy." He argues location: "rooftop access there but there's also a staircase down in the little alley there in that little nook so it's to me, it's pretty obvious that the shooter was was most likely, here somewhere." "Somewhere on those stairs would be my tip, and if the FBI aren't looking there, I don't know why."

"100% proof that Ashley Babbitt was not shot." Before that, I wanna give credit to where credit is due. I wanna thank Jesus Christ, the lord and savior. It was his spirit, his spirit of truth that revealed to my heart that something was off. So I spent a lot of time analyzing the videos and check this out. So this is John Sullivan's footage and we're gonna see the gun. Of course, it's gonna make that quick movement, but also look at where it's shooting. It's shooting really low in comparison to Ashley Babbitt's neck. But then look in the upper right hand corner, and you're gonna see something move. You see that? See, we get the rare opportunity of seeing the travel of the bullet. So let's go back to this scene. This is a video clip from main mainstream media. We see Helmet Boy bashing the windows. He's gonna head over to the final window and the one that must have been installed with thumbtacks because he knocks it out in one shot. Oh, boy. But look at the wooden window trim. This is what's gonna get hit by the pathway of the bullet. Watch this. Did you see that? We got a clear shot of which way the bullet actually went after it left the gun. You may be thinking, well, it hit the window trim and then it hit Ashley Babbitt. That could happen if the shooter was shooting from in front of Ashley, but the shooter is shooting from the side of Ashley. So what we got is actually a really clear shot that Ashley Babbitt did not get shot by that bullet.

In this video, the speaker discusses a witness named Alyssa Hopper who supposedly gave CPR to a shooting victim in a deli. The speaker claims that the shooting was staged and that the victim's father is an actor. They also question the credibility of Alyssa's actions and mention her recent tattoo paying respects to the shooting. The speaker believes the entire event is a hoax for gun control and mental health legislation. They provide links for further information.

Speaker 0: "We still have, basically confirmation he got shot. ... immediate incapacitation." He asserts "the FBI is lying" and that "it's quite literally not possible for the shooter to have been on the roof that they claim he is along with other inconsistencies across the board." Speaker 1: "Keep your eye on this space here... the bullet matches the exit wound, ... the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." He adds: "the same what appears to be the bullet coming down and it does line up with the actual gunshot itself." From Google Earth, "the shooter was up here somewhere, that's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "the shooter was most likely here somewhere." "Somewhere on those stairs would be my tip, and if the FBI aren't looking there, I don't know why."

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

Zeb Boykin introduces himself as a Marine scout sniper and says he will keep the video short. He asserts, "the FBI lies to us" and urges evaluating claims without preconceived notions, focusing on ballistics. He identifies nine camera angles and uses four (Cam1–Cam4) to analyze footage frame by frame. He argues a bullet is visible before it hits Charlie Kirk, suggesting the shot came from the right/front and that the earpiece and cord movement shows a mic being pulled by a shockwave, not body armor. He describes an exit wound in the neck and an entry wound that wouldn’t produce the observed damage, estimating calibers around nine millimeter or .38, not 30-06. He discusses muzzle-flash frame, earpiece trajectory, and a Cam4 reflection claim, concluding, "This cannot happen if the shooter is shooting on the roof straight on," and "The FBI is lying to you."

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

The video investigates whether Charlie Kirk was wearing a vest and how that could change perspective. The narrator, who says he knows nothing about guns but trusts Kyle Sarifen, passes through what Kyle showed him. Viewers are asked to watch the chest reaction before a neck hole appears, with explanations that a white vest under the shirt could hide a bullet hole or black letters on the shirt could be struck. The shooter’s position is argued; a shot from the opposite side is unlikely. The speaker suggests the most likely scenario is that Kirk wore a white vest; a long rifle bullet went through the vest, through the chest, hit the spinal cord, and ricocheted out the throat. Blood splatter could be explained if the vest prevented splatter. CCTV footage is referenced; the speaker remains uncertain about a trans shooter and distrusts FBI statements. Kyle’s gun expertise is highlighted.

Speaker, relying on Kyle Sarifen, analyzes a clip to explore whether Charlie Kirk wore a bulletproof vest. He points to a chest reaction before a neck wound and suggests two possibilities for the missing visible bullet hole: a white vest under the shirt or the round touching the shirt’s black letters. The mic being knocked off is cited as evidence of impact. A shot from the side is argued unlikely given the neck angle. The proposed scenario: the vest was white, the bullet goes through the vest and chest, hits bone or the spinal cord, ricochets, and exits the throat, causing a wound and blood seen through the shirt. The shooter is described as possibly a long rifle shooter; doubt is cast on a trans shooter; CCTV footage is referenced; FBI skepticism mentioned. Kyle is described as someone who does this for a living, and comments are invited.

Speaker 0 says 'The FBI continues to destroy its reputation as a trustworthy investigative agency' and questions Charlie Kirk's death: 'Was it a 30 odd six round that killed Charlie Kirk or a different kind of bullet? Was it a Mauser rifle that was used?' They ask why the Utah Valley campus crime scene is not secure and link it to the pattern after the Butler rally. Zeb Boykin, a former marine sniper, claims 'I do believe I know where the bullet ended up' after analyzing footage. He notes a ricochet off water bottles or a table, two frames showing 'the bullet on exit,' and that it 'would hit the building.' He cites rapid cleanup, 'a 20 foot ladder on the window,' window repairs, and a tampering video with a man in black directing people as attention shifts upward. ER nurses identify an exit wound; 'the ballistics don't lie.'

Speaker discusses Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest, citing a confirmed source and a message on X: 'Carly Carly Trik arrived.' He says 'he was hit in the chest, which is what we saw' and that 'the bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck.' He asserts 'There was no side shooter' and that 'The main shooter we're looking at came from the front' and 'I don't think it was that Tyler dude' and 'I think that Tyler dude is a patsy' and 'I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof.' He labels counter theories as 'slop' and urges focus on CCTV footages, noting 'the FBI has told us' and suggesting the body was moved, asking 'Is anybody buying this?' He concludes 'I think that there is somebody much farther back than that' and 'the dude on the roof is a patsy.'

Speaker questions whether Charlie Kirk wore a bulletproof vest and says this could change perspectives. He admits little about guns but trusts Kyle Sarifen who walked him through it. The video shows a chest reaction and suggests something hit the shirt before the neck. Two explanations for no visible bullet hole: a white vest underneath or the round struck letters on the shirt. The mic being flung off implies an impact. They argue a shot from that side is unlikely due to head angle. They propose: a white vest under the shirt, a round passing through the vest, hitting chest, spinal cord, ricocheting to exit the throat, with blood coming through the shirt. They think a long rifle from an angle is likely; not convinced about a trans shooter; CCTV footage could settle it. They refrain from stating who shot, and note FBI questions; Kyle is described as an expert.

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.”

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.'

The speaker references a person who was removing memory cards from cameras about four minutes after what is described as the Charlie Kirk assassination, noting that something about the situation didn’t sit right. They mention Candace released a video showing how this person reacted, and that diligent investigation followed, including a campus visit to UVU to examine the events with a play-by-play analysis. The speaker says they will leave a link to that video but first shows a clip. In the clip, Speaker 1 describes the sequence: “He doesn't try to grab Charlie. He doesn't duck. His first reaction standing right here is to turn this way and start booking.” The person “starts booking back here,” and Speaker 1 notes that he sees the shot and that Charlie hasn’t even hit the ground yet. Charlie is described as being in a position where “Charlie’s like this,” and the person pivots to lean back. Security personnel respond by coming over, grabbing him, and pulling him to the ground. Meanwhile, Terrell Farnsworth “has already turned and begun running back here to climb up on that wall.” The speaker asks the audience to imagine there had just been a shooting, with chaos and people running. Charlie Kirk “was just shot,” and the wall is described as “almost as tall as I am.” The speaker asks the audience if they can see, confirming visibility. The analysis then focuses on the person’s actions: measuring “how much of a pain in the ass he climbed up right here and then threw that loose rock and just so he could get to his vantage point.” The speaker calls it out as an attempt to explain the sequence from the vantage point up the wall. The clip continues with the person producing a selfie video: “Oh, they shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie.” They refer to him as “Agent” and note his statements like “They shot Charlie. God help him.” The speaker says this behavior is a major red flag and cites it as the most troubling aspect. The running scene is described further: as the person runs out, he looks to his left and, in the footage, is seen climbing up, then reacting to the news that Charlie was shot. The voiceover emphasizes the emotional state (or lack thereof) as the footage shows the stampede of people and chaos. The speaker underscores that, to them, the absence of emotion on the person’s face during these events is “the biggest red flag of all.”

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.

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

Speaker analyzes whether Charlie Kirk wore a bulletproof vest, guided by Kyle Sarifen. He cites a moment where 'something caused his body to react that way before we see the hole in the neck' 'pay close attention to his chest and the reaction.' He presents two possibilities: 'there could easily be a white vest under it' or 'the solid white was still there, they got filled in behind it.' He suggests the mic was knocked off and argues that 'the bullet went straight through the vest, through holes in the chest, hits the spinal cord, hits a bone, and then comes actually ricochets and comes out the throat,' with 'the exit wound was here in the throat' and 'blood gushing out there.' He mentions CCTV footage, a long rifle, and says he's not convinced of a trans shooter, noting FBI lies and that 'Kyle does this stuff for a living.'

"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."

Questions the claim 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.' He asks if he had 'planted the gun on the roof prior' and how he could 'walk back in the second time without the weapon.' He questions why 'we don't have any images of this kid leaving the school' or 'any video footage of this kid jumping off the roof,' and notes he 'runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods' while wearing 'an American flag shirt.' He doubts the FBI photo is the best they can provide and references 'criminal minds' and 'the BAU' that would 'rerender that image' to be 'pixel perfect' with 'face recognition software.' Contrasts movie-like tech with reality, calling it '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.

In this video, the speaker analyzes a slow-motion footage of a shooting incident. They question the authenticity of the scene, suggesting that the pistol magically appears in the shooter's hand through CGI effects. They also point out that there is no visible damage to the shooter's arm despite being shot. The speaker finds it suspicious that the gun only becomes shiny and reflective after the shooter's hands cover it. They conclude that the situation seems fishy due to the mysterious appearance of the gun and the lack of harm to the shooter's arm.

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."

"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."