TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a health care executive who presided over a system that allegedly kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that one should still try to make an argument and find a way to convince people and change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that there may be things wrong with the healthcare system. The speaker does not believe there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

Speaker 0 discusses claims related to two major historical events and the alleged suppression of information surrounding them. First, regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Speaker 0 asserts that the assassination was carried out “by the Tiny Hats,” and that 18 witnesses were found dead afterward. This assertion is presented as a central point in the book, which Speaker 0 says has been banned because it “admits that after JFK was taken out by the Tiny Hats, 18 of the witnesses also ended up no longer alive.” The speaker emphasizes that the pattern is that “they always try to eliminate anybody who can expose the truth.” Second, Speaker 0 connects the JFK event to the Apollo moon-landing narrative. The claim is that after the alleged people went to the moon, the astronauts who supposedly went to the moon “also ended up no longer being here.” The implication is that those who could have spoken out against the moon-landing story were removed. The speaker then elaborates that “they took out the people who could have said something, who could have told people that they just landed in Nevada instead of actually going to the moon.” Throughout, the text frames these statements as part of a broader pattern of silencing witnesses who might reveal the “truth.” The speaker presents the sequence as follows: after JFK’s assassination, witnesses who could reveal the reality were killed; similarly, after the moon-landing story, astronauts or others connected to the event who could provide alternative information were also eliminated. The underlying claim is that both events are accompanied by deliberate actions to prevent disclosure of a hidden truth, with the book cited as a vehicle that documents or supports this view, contributing to its ban. No additional context, verification, or evaluation of these claims is provided in the excerpt. The focus remains on the asserted linkage between high-profile events, the deaths of witnesses or involved individuals, and the notion of intentional suppression of alternate explanations. The overall narrative centers on alleged conspiratorial patterns of eliminating people who could reveal the supposed truth behind JFK’s assassination and the moon landing.

President Eisenhower warned us against the emerging military industrial complex that would turn us into an imperium. My uncle's thousand days in office were a constant fight to keep the country out of war. They tried to trick him into the Bay of Pigs invasion, but he refused to send in the military. He realized he'd been tricked and later fired those involved in the deception. They tried to get him to invade Laos, Cuba, and Berlin, but he wouldn't. In Vietnam, he only sent advisors, but when he found out about the casualties, he ordered everyone home. Thirty days after signing that order, he was murdered. Johnson then reversed the order and sent in troops. These traumas, including my uncle's death, pushed us down the road Eisenhower warned against. Today, we are the military industrial complex, and nobody believes their voices are heard in Washington. To go back to our original idealism, we must look at the original trauma and expose what happened to my uncle.

Charlie Kirk addresses perspectives on political assassinations, including JFK’s. In the JFK files, Mossad is mentioned, but not tied to involvement; the best reading is “who wanted JFK dead the most,” with Israel frequently cited, yet Lyndon Baines Johnson, parts of the U.S. government, and the Cubans also implicated. There were “like, 15 or 20 things that happened that day that were inexcusable,” such as changing the parade route, JFK riding in an open-air convertible, LBJ not riding alongside him, the vehicle slowing down as it passed the Texas School Book Depository. The question emphasized is not only who did it, but that more than one person did it; acknowledging that could reveal government lies about JFK, leading to a broader skepticism about future government trust. Another participant comments that Charlie Kirk reminded viewers of common sense and not accepting force-fed narratives or “BS crap” from the government regarding a single gunman; the discussion notes “multiple people were involved” and “a lot of strange things occurred” that day. This aligns with a broader critique of government psychological operations: MK Ultra, Mockingbird, and Mockingbird II. The first government surveillance on the people after JFK’s assassination is described as Mockingbird I, designed to convince there was nothing to see despite much to see, with Mockingbird II deployed again to convince people that questions about Kirk’s narrative are crazy and to suggest there may be Turning Point USA employees engaged in an obvious cover-up. Frank Turek is cited as saying it’s crazy to imply betrayal by trusted individuals, though the historical note mentions Jesus Christ as a betrayal example; the discussion asserts JFK personally selected LBJ as vice president, and that LBJ was clearly implicated in JFK’s assassination. Charlie is said to be open to the idea that Mossad may have been involved, and he asserts that parts of the U.S. government and the Cubans were involved; he asks for more argument regarding Mossad. He suggests JFK’s assassination was plausible to involve multiple actors and notes that the question of “who wanted JFK dead the most” should be pursued further, including in examining who would want Charlie Kirk dead and why. The dialogue then moves to the political fast lane, with three motives for those who might want him dead: money, secrets, and power. He says he refused money, implying he knows his secrets; his youth political organization has gained influence. The discussion speculates on global implications, naming France, Israel, the U.S. government, and Egypt as mentioned in connection with the investigation. The McCrone couple are described as having paid for an assassination threat, and, notably, neither the Pentagon nor the White House or intelligence agencies nor the Elysee Palace dispute that narrative; the FBI is now listed as not denying that threat.

Some leaders feel a physical threat, including at least two assassination attempts against Trump, possibly by Iran. However, if Iran had tried to assassinate Trump, the U.S. would be at war with them. The American president was murdered, and we're still not allowed to know who did it and why. You can't have a president or senator who truly does his best to uphold the core idea of a democratic republic because he's worried about getting killed. If this were happening in Liberia you'd be like it's not a real government because whenever the president strays outside the pre prescribed boundaries, he gets murdered or worries about getting murdered. Foreign policy is the only issue they care about. They only care about the projection of force using American service personnel to fight faraway wars that have no material benefit.

The speaker concludes that the Israeli Mossad was involved in John F. Kennedy's assassination because Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building nuclear weapons. The speaker claims that when they first presented this proposition, they were fiercely attacked by JFK assassination researchers who hadn't read their book. The speaker states that people misrepresented their argument as claiming that Israelis directly assassinated Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. The speaker clarifies that their actual suggestion was that pro-Israel elements in the CIA, connected to pro-Israel elements of organized crime and in the Mossad, were involved. Despite this clarification, the speaker says people preferred to attack them rather than pay attention to what they wrote.

Speaker 0: Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. Speaker 1: If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech. And we're not gonna let that be justified.

Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech, and we're not gonna let that be justified.

The speaker asserts that “the left wakes up tomorrow and realizes that somebody that agrees with them assassinated the equivalent of Martin Luther King junior” and that “they are celebrating right now.” He credits “Charlie Kirk started a movement, and he led that movement. And that movement changed the election. Without Charlie Kirk, president Trump does not win in 2024.” “The people whose minds he changed... they know it. And you just woke them up.” He calls it “the equivalent of assassinating Martin Luther King, and you'll never be able to live this down.” He warns of “the ones that are celebrating, the ones that are cheering, the ones that are excited and happy.” He asks, “who you are as a person that can allow you to watch somebody get assassinated... knowing his wife and his children were standing there watching, and you're cheering it.” “Because of words that he spoke, ideas that he had, which, by the way, are pretty standard ideas for all of millennia,” and that “you killed him.” “You just created a Martin Luther King, and you created 10,000,000 new Charlie Kirks at the same time.”

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

The Kennedy family had a long-standing feud with the CIA. Joseph Kennedy, the family patriarch, called for an end to the CIA's operations, and John and Robert Kennedy criticized the CIA's role in Vietnam. Before his assassination, John Kennedy planned to remove the clandestine services from the CIA. There were many enemies, not just from the CIA, who opposed the family. It wasn't until recently that doubts arose about who killed John Kennedy. Paul Schrade, a close friend of Robert Kennedy, believes Sirhan Sirhan did not act alone. The autopsy report and ballistic evidence suggest that Sirhan couldn't have shot John Kennedy from behind. The speaker doesn't draw any conclusions but emphasizes the importance of facts, autopsy reports, ballistic evidence, and eyewitness accounts. The involvement of the CIA or another government agency remains uncertain.

Who killed Charlie Kirk? At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country. I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory with an ever changing plot line that makes little sense. Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more noninterventionist approach. Was Charlie Kirk murdered directly or indirectly by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views and such an influential leader? We don't know. But no army or assassin can stop an idea whose time has come. Rest in peace.

The speaker lays out a narrative in which Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, is intricately connected to the CIA and to a longtime insider, James Angleton. The claim is that Mossad and Angleton formed an alliance “forever,” with Angleton described as “the mole” who was aligned with Mossad. In 1960, Angleton was the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Foreign Intelligence, and he is depicted as the person who was always searching for a Russian mole. The speaker asserts that Angleton was effectively the Russian mole because of his close friendship with Mossad, to the extent that he would share information with Mossad and Mossad would not relay it to Russia. The narrative then moves to 1963, referencing David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli prime minister, arguing that Israel decided to kill John F. Kennedy. The speaker quotes Ben-Gurion as saying that Kennedy’s threats of inspections of “demonic” (interpreted as a mispronunciation or coded term for dangerous issues) were unacceptable, and that Ben-Gurion said, “It’s none of his frigging business. I don’t wanna hear anymore from Kennedy. You kill him.” According to the speaker, Ben-Gurion issued this order to Mossad and then resigned so he could not be held responsible for it. The implication is that Mossad then went to Angleton, implying that the Kennedy assassination was not a CIA job, but was “greased by the CIA” because Angleton had his connections at Mossad. From there, the speaker claims that Corsican sharpshooters were hired by Mossad for the Kennedy assassination as part of a larger operation at Dealey Plaza, including the escape. The speaker asserts that public suspicion has misattributed the blame to the mob, Lyndon Johnson, or Castro, but maintains that it was Israel that carried it out. The stated motive is tied to Israel’s desire to avoid further inspections related to their nuclear program. The speaker claims this is connected to Israel’s nuclear and biological capabilities and asserts that plutonium was stolen from the United States to support their program. In summary, the speaker contends that the Kennedy assassination was orchestrated not by the CIA alone, but through a coordinated effort involving Mossad, James Angleton, and David Ben-Gurion, with Israel acting to prevent scrutiny of its nuclear activities by eliminating Kennedy, aided by Corsican shooters and a CIA-Mossad alliance.

At the core of the left, at the core of a liberal, is someone that would use the sword if they had it. They are very violent people at their core. They always have it. They can't debate. They can't have conversation. So they'll resort to these tactics. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to try to murder this movement because they can't beat us. So they're gonna try to take weapons. And now we're very aware of that. I'm aware of it. We have to have full time security. This is not a joke. This is who these people are.

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 urges stopping the use of the word "assassination," arguing that from a death investigator’s/forensics perspective, this is a murder investigation and a homicide. They state, "You politicize it when you say assassination."

It's not just blackmail or bribery that makes people obey, but also the threat of violence. Every US president has been threatened with violence implicitly because of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Presidents understand the outlines of what happened, but no one has released all the files. The message is clear: if you get too far outside the boundaries, you could wind up like JFK. The forces that murdered the sitting president in 1963 probably placed those boundaries.

It continued after that. When the church committee happened and Frank Church brought it out that MKUltra existed, well, the stuff hit the fan, and everybody started screaming, we need more of this. Well, Richard Helms, the director of the CIA, immediately destroyed 10,000 MKULTRA documents so that Congress couldn't see them and then threatened the CIA officers who were due to testify with prison if they violated their secrecy agreement. They tried that with me. So that's one of the means of control. So MKULTRA, they said after the church committee, well, we don't do that anymore. It's been done away with. Victor Marchetti, who wrote CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, I don't know if you're aware of that book. He was the first real CIA whistleblower. He said they claimed MK Ultra stopped at 1973, but he said that's just a cover story. It continued after that. He believes MK Ultra still exists, and one of the classic examples is Sirhan Sirhan, who was one of the shooters that killed Robert Kennedy senior. Sirhan Sirhan claimed he didn't remember anything about the event at all afterwards, and they went in there and tested him psychologically. And he was so programmable, they had him climbing his cell like a monkey. I have become friends because of our both of our kinds of disenchantment to say that with the CIA. And Bobby met with Sirhan Sirhan. He said he did he had no idea of what he'd done at all. No memory of it at all. And the psychiatrists were so easy, it was so easy rather to program him that they had him climbing the cell, like I said, like a monkey. And he was, I'm convinced, an MK Ultra subject. I'm absolutely convinced of this. I don't wanna speak for Bobby Kennedy Jr. We've become friends since, but I think he would probably agree with that as a classic case of it still existing. And why would Why would they give up such a powerful weapon? You can mind control individuals who can carry out assassinations or pretend to be an assassin as a patsy and be caught while actual CIA agents are actually shooting and killing JFK or shooting and killing RFK in a kitchen in Los Angeles. So it's a very convenient

Speaker claims, "Brother Charlie got murdered, assassinated a few days ago, but the truth is he was assassinated a few years ago." They argue that electing people who demonize their political opponents leads to violence, adding, "So you might have pulled the trigger yourself." The speaker asks, "Who demonize political opponents? Who call political opponents enemies, Hitler, a threat to democracy, who say because we disagree, if you see someone, walk up to them and if they're eating in a restaurant, tell them they're not welcome, get in their face." They warn, "When you start saying stuff like that, calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, stuff like that. Well, sooner or later, a kook is gonna hear that. A crazy person is going to hear that, and they're going to act on it."

There's no way they would run the same playbook twice. On 04/04/1968, Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. stepped onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee at 06:01 PM. Authorities say a single 30-odd-six rifle shot struck him in the jaw and neck, one shot, one kill. The police also find a bundle near the crime scene containing a Remington Model 760 rifle, binoculars, and personal items tied to one James Earl Ray, an escaped convict from Missouri. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover quickly pronounced Ray to be a lone, racist, hate-filled assassin and there were no co-conspirators, no second shooter, and no larger plot. Didn't something like that happen just recently? Years later, the FBI and also the House Select Committee on Assassinations both admitted they could never conclusively match the fatal bullet to Ray's rifle. So in other words, the single most important piece of forensic proof tying Ray to the murder does not actually exist. And then there were the contradicting eyewitnesses. This is from the Washington Post: some witnesses, including then New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell, said that they saw a man moving in the thick bushes behind Jim's grill, which is near the crime scene, but in a location not where Ray was said to be. Then they say, for reasons unknown, Memphis Public Works employees cut down the bushes and destroyed a possible crime scene the very next morning. As always, when you follow the evidence or lack thereof, things just stop adding up.

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a healthcare executive who he believed was presiding over a system that kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that they don't know what to say, but that one should try to make an argument and convince people to change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that they don't think there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

Speaker 0: We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries. We manipulated elections in dozens of countries. We created standing armies and directed them to fight. We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt. The first thing we did in Nicaragua was to go to the Mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rationales and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage. And this has been a technique the CI has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in The Congo, in in Iran Iraq with the Kurds in different parts of the world. We created, trained, and funded death squads like the treasury police in El Salvador, and we've assassinated world leaders, including The United States president in 1963, and I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua, but adding them up as best we can, we come up with a figure of 6,000,000 people killed, minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force The United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.

You know what's interesting about assassination? Well, not only does it change those popularity polls in a big fucking hurry, but it's also interesting to notice who it is we assassinate. Do ever notice who it is? Stop to think of who it is we kill. It's always people who've told us to live together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm x, John Lennon. They all said, try to live together peacefully. Bam. Right in the fucking head. Apparently, we're not ready for that. Yeah. That's difficult behavior for us.

Secrecy is repugnant in a free society. The assassination of President Kennedy occurred at 1 PM CST. We must overcome societal divisions – racial, economic, etc. – and work together. The assassinations of both Kennedy brothers are acknowledged. The dangers of excessive concealment outweigh the justifications for it. We must not let the need for security be used to expand censorship. The CIA’s purpose was creating constant wars for the military-industrial complex. Many Americans distrust the Warren Commission report. We must protect our freedoms; they are coming after us. No official should use my words as an excuse to censor, stifle dissent, or withhold facts. Some media push personal agendas, threatening our democracy. We seek a true peace, not one enforced by American weapons; we all share this planet and our children’s future.