TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 adamantly defends Charlie’s security team, calling them an elite, lifelong ally group and stating they are “brothers with Charlie” who are “supporting Charlie at all times.” They argue that if any danger had been suspected that day in Utah, they wouldn’t have released Charlie to public life. Security at events is described as a collaboration with local police, with campus protection handled by university police; there is a delineation between personal protection for Charlie and campus protection. At Utah Valley University, the campus perimeter and rooftops were the responsibility of campus security, while outside appearances require the team to cover gaps where no police presence exists. The team is said to have performed impeccably and were among the first to try to save Charlie. They emphasize willingness to sacrifice for others and condemn online misinformation. They advocate a robust drone program and constant rooftop surveillance as standard, and note the investigation is ongoing, with the suspect in custody and going to trial.

We saw a man crawling on a roof with a rifle while Trump was speaking. We alerted the police and Secret Service, but they seemed unaware. Eventually, the man was shot by the Secret Service. The speaker is certain the shots came from the man on the roof.

Chemical munitions were deployed, and flashbangs were used against the speakers. There was a request for assistance near an ice cream tower. The speaker, who has custody of 44,000 hours of videos, witnessed acts of violence against police officers that were brutal and ugly. The officers did what they had to do. However, another speaker claims that if the police hadn't used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the incident wouldn't have occurred. They argue that it was a peaceful protest and deny any aggression towards the officers. The situation escalated when the police started firing without provocation.

At Utah Valley University, TPUSA's Charlie Kirk event drew clashes between the patriot protest side and Love and Tolerance crowd. Protesters spoke of "free Palestine, love one another. Free Palestine, there's a genocide" and held signs like "Don't legalize racism." They said "we're not supporting terrorists" and argued "genocide's wrong on both sides" while debating when life begins and "to do their own thing." A speaker discussed livestream gear, cameras, and interviews. Then shots rang out; eyewitnesses described hearing a shot, seeing blood, and Charlie Kirk being carried away; "My son just said Charlie Kirk has been shot in the neck"—unconfirmed. The campus was evacuated; police searched for possible rooftop shooters and a man was arrested; witnesses said "There was no security" at entry. The scene became a crime investigation with an active perimeter.

Speaker 1 describes a man on the team who, after he was shot, runs toward the vehicles, stays outside the vehicles, and films a TikTok selfie video. They ask to identify this person, and it is confirmed to be the audio-visual (AV) team member who runs the cameras. This individual is said to have said, “Charlie just got shot,” and is the same person associated with the footage and the AV setup contracted to shoot the coverage. Speaker 0 clarifies that this person works for a company called VI, which provides contract AV/video personnel, and is not a security guy. He is the AV team member who runs the cameras. He also is described as the person who “took down the cameras” and there were questions about what happened to the footage, noting that this is a legitimate inquiry. Speaker 1 adds that after the event, someone goes to the camera behind Charlie, pulls the camera down, and it looks like they pull the SD card out; this footage is in the hands of the FBI and was not deleted or erased. The SD card was pulled by someone named Senga, and the footage ended up with the FBI. Speaker 0 reiterates that the AV person works for VI, the video contracting company, not as security. He expresses confusion about the phone usage and states that it’s not for him to understand that part; he observes that, in tragic events, people pull their phones out instead of running, and says that’s for the AV person to explain. He notes that the AV person does not work for them, but from what he has seen, this is the same person who took down the cameras, prompting legitimate questions about where that footage went. He confirms that the person was interviewed by the FBI, asked questions, and that all relevant material was turned over.

At UVU, a Turning Point USA event with Charlie Kirk, attendees are interviewed amid live streaming gear. The scene turns chaotic as shots ring out and the campus evacuates: "There has been a shooting," and "The active shooter Charlie Kirk has been shot." Eyewitnesses describe hearing the shot, seeing Charlie Kirk slump and blood "gushing out" from his neck; others say he was "shot in the neck" or "hit." Reports of a possible shooter on the roof and rapid police response follow: "there might be a guy on the roof," and "The police said it could have come from up on the roof." A photographer's footage and security updates circulate. Signs express diverse views: "free Palestine, love one another" and "don't legalize racism." Participants also caution, "We also don't condone Hamas" and "genocide's wrong on both sides."

The speaker introduces Emmanuel Bearer as someone they consider extremely shady and outlines a request to obtain explicit footage of him, specifically who he was with in the crowd, and to identify every person in attendance. The speaker claims Bearer is a former Oracle engineer, likely from Germany, and notes that Bearer attended the event. They question how Bearer, a relatively obscure figure, became an eyewitness who appeared in Salt Lake City in coverage by the mainstream media, specifically mentioning PBS. The speaker asks how PBS or other media outlets knew to reach out to Bearer and whether Bearer tweeted or otherwise indicated he was there. The speaker describes a desire to understand the process by which Bearer was selected for media interviews and to replicate a method of on-the-ground reporting at the UVU campus rather than relying on Bearer’s account. They reference a prior incident involving Tiffany Barker to illustrate concerns about how media connections are made and how certain individuals gain attention. The speaker asks for clarification on how Emmanuel Bearer was chosen as an eyewitness and why mainstream media pursued him. The speaker then presents a clip of Bearer testifying on PBS, quoting Bearer: “I hear this loud sound, and I'm like, that wasn't what I thought it was, is it? I was like, no. This can't be happening right now. And we all ducked.” They note that Bearer appeared on nearly every news channel and mention that there may be a longer clip they could locate. Finally, the speaker appeals to anyone who attended the UVU event with Bearer to come forward to clarify who Bearer was with, to send photos, and to explain how Bearer became an eyewitness that the mainstream media wanted to speak to, expressing strong suspicion about the unattended appearance and coverage of Bearer.

"This is so much so." "Before we had a flag and we had" "it so it's positioned above the tent so it'd be in" "the camera made us move. What was that?" "Just a so much so." "It's too crowded." "It's just there's just so much." "As you can see, this new trajectory places a shooter on the roof of the Sorenson Center, and the shot would come at a much steeper down angle and a much larger angle off of the perpendicular, such that a bullet entering Charlie's neck would hit his spine and glance downward into his chest cavity, killing him instantly."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 address a viral video about Charlie’s chief of staff, Mikey, and explain why they are discussing it. - The video in question attacks Mikey, Charlie’s chief of staff, claiming based on a few seconds of clips that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. They describe this as a “extremely disgusting attack.” - Speaker 1 recounts what happened: they were at the scene when a shooting occurred. The loud crack is heard; they turn and see Charlie has been shot. They realize there is a shooter on the scene. They decide to get out of there rather than be shot, noting Charlie had a security team that leapt into action to get Charlie out. - Speaker 0 notes their own actions: he, too, considered getting into the car, but decided against it. He was ahead of Mikey as they left. He recalls a moment where he paused to assess the situation, then saw Mikey, who was profoundly freaked out. Mikey’s lip was quivering, and he said, “I need to call Erica,” then took his phone and began calling Erica. Speaker 0 also called his own mom, saying there had been a shooting and that he was okay. - They describe Mikey’s later actions: after the initial shock, Mikey took charge like a “general directing a battle,” coordinating hospital transport and information flow, and directing people where to go. When they learned Charlie had died, Mikey told them, “now none of you can say anything that you've heard because it is Erica is not going to hear about this from anyone except me.” - Speaker 2 asks if Mikey could be involved in a conspiracy to murder Charlie. Speaker 1 responds that such accusations are vile and describes how some people online fuel such narratives, comparing the mindset to getting a “high” from dangerous or provocative content. - The speakers emphasize Mikey’s heroic actions: Mikey was distressed but stepped up to direct people and communicate with Erica and others. Speaker 0 notes that he, too, was traumatized after learning of Charlie’s death and rushed to be with Erica and the team. - They address the specific allegation that Mikey was on the phone immediately during the incident; they state he was not on the phone but was taking social videos to share with their group chats. He would send updates to Charlie’s social media during the event while the crowd was changing, then, overwhelmed by the noise and shock, he put his fingers in his ears but his phone remained in his hand as he moved away. - They describe the scene as a cordoned-off area with a narrow gap that people used to exit, where Mikey walked briskly or ran as he processed the trauma and continued to direct actions. They reiterate Mikey “turned into a general on a field marshaling the troops.” - Speaker 1 closes by urging readers who propagate narratives attacking Mikey to reconsider, stating that such narratives are bad and gross and a choice that shouldn’t be made.

The exchange centers on filming rights and the status of the location. Speaker 0 challenges whether they are allowed to film, asking, “Oh, turn off the camera? Yeah. Do I not have a right to have the camera? I’m not giving you permission to check my face.” They then inquire about authority, asking, “Are you a public servant? Or United Nations against the city. Okay. Does because this is my city, and so I have a right to film.” This line underscores Speaker 0’s insistence on their right to record within the space, coupled with a demand for clarity about the other party’s authority to restrict that right. Speaker 1 responds by questioning the premise of the filmed area, asking, “This is United Nations compound?” and clarifies the location’s status by confirming whether it is a compound. The conversation shifts to the status and sovereignty of the area, with Speaker 1 asserting control and jurisdiction over the space in question. A pivotal point in the dialogue arises when Speaker 1 provides a long claim about the compound’s ownership and territorial status. They state, “Since Sunday evening, we took over this compound. This is international territory.” They further elaborate the contrasting jurisdictions, stating, “When you step outside, it’s US. Here is international territory.” This statement frames the location as international territory within the compound, implying a distinct legal or political status compared to the surrounding area. Overall, the interaction is a brief confrontation over visual documentation and the governing authority of the space. Speaker 0 emphasizes the right to film and presses for clarity on who can permit or deny that right, while Speaker 1 asserts that the space is an international territory under their control since Sunday evening, differentiating it from the surrounding US jurisdiction. The dialogue highlights tensions between individual or press rights to film and a claimed change in sovereignty or control of a contested compound.

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

The speaker says they tracked down internal Utah Valley University documents showing the roof access point and the cameras. They cite the telecommunication distribution guide of 06/01/2022, noting updates and new cameras in specific areas. They discuss campus camera counts: "anytime a university has roughly over 30,000 students, you're looking at at least over 15, if not 1,800 cameras." Utah Valley has 45,000 students, so they say, "you would think that you would have roughly over 2,000," though "Grock" estimates 500 to 700. At the Watchatch campus, the document states: "A complete video surveillance system shall be provided... Cameras shall be fixed with ten eighty p HD IP cameras" with meeting date "08/06/2024." The speaker asks, "What is the FBI hiding?" and notes, "They have ten eighty p HD cameras that were surveilling this man" and, "If this is the guy... we should 100% have video surveillance of the man leaving the roof." This is their own internal document showing the roof access point and how the cameras were mounted at the university where Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

The speaker asserts: "starts within five seconds, maybe fifteen seconds tops of Charlie Kirk being assassinated" and "This is the CCTV footage we want." He asks, "why is it that you will not or you are refusing to release this video right here of fifteen seconds prior to Charlie Kirk or prior to what you did release?" He adds, "This dude is sprinting off the roof." He continues, "we went around the campus, and there's another camera." He notes there is "CCTV footage that literally shows the would have shown Tyler shooting at Charlie because the camera is literally right behind Charlie Kirk," and asks why that CCTV footage isn't released. He also asks, "What are on these CCTV cameras? Was there another shooter farther back that you don't wanna show us?" Finally, he asks, "What is this? This literally looks like a camera, a CCTV camera completely removed from the side of the building. Care to comment?"

At Utah Valley University, a Turning Point USA event with Charlie Kirk erupted as "There has been a shooting." Eyewitnesses said "Charlie Kirk got shot in the neck is what my kid is saying." "We are live at Utah Valley University." "There's been a shooting at the Charlie Kirk event, the TP USA event." Police evacuated the area; there was "an active crime scene" and reports of a suspect on a roof. Attendees debated issues: "The supreme court said they could deport people based off their skin color?" and "Color of the skin, speaking Spanish or speaking with The accent." Signs read "free Palestine, love one another" and "Don't legalize racism."

Discussion centers on drones and Jason Goodman's analysis, with speculation of "speculating maybe three, maybe four unmanned drones." While reviewing livestream footage, "I saw a drone just go right by in the footage." Speaker 1 says he "set on this inform" and "known about the drone since the weekend," trying to reach out to people "to bring it to their attention and say, hey." "We've got something here. Let me show you." He adds, "No one would give me the time of day." He references "one flyby that he, he's got referenced there" and notes "the drone comes crazy, crazy just right out in front of the crowd." He concludes, "just today, I found two new drones, and I just put them up on my Twitter page, about maybe two hours ago."

Speaker 0 warns about chemical munitions and instructs the team to deploy. Speaker 1 welcomes viewers to the front line. Speaker 2 calls for more munitions and urges shooting. Speaker 3 expresses disappointment as their own team shoots at them. Speaker 4 provides location updates. Speaker 5, who has custody of videos, acknowledges acts of violence during the protest. Speaker 1 blames the officers for initiating violence, stating it was a peaceful protest. Speaker 0 mentions tear gas being used.

Speaker 1 is confused about why they are being asked to leave a presidential campaign event. Speaker 0 explains that it is because they are on private property. Speaker 1 questions why they are being kicked out if they work for Nikki's campaign and were told to sign up for the event. Speaker 0 refuses to answer questions and asks Speaker 1 to leave. Speaker 1 insists that they received an email and text instructing them to sign up for the event. Speaker 2 also asks Speaker 1 to leave, but Speaker 1 argues that they are asking nicely too. Speaker 0 reiterates that they don't have answers and that Speaker 1 must leave the premises.

The speaker identifies family roles: Justin is the chief CFO and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls a moment when Charlie was shot and immediately says, “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing and had blood all over him, while Frank Turic was giving Charlie CPR and was covered in blood. The speaker then addresses online misinformation, calling it “the stupidity of the Internet” and dismissing claims that hand signals were being used. He states that it was Frank Turic, a Christian apologist, who was providing CPR, and that Frank’s children were on the phone when he was videotaping it and saw the bullet. He says, “Signals, really?” and rejects the conspiracy surrounding Dan, the security guard, who is said to be connected to the conspiracy. He emphasizes that Dan is a believer and expresses affection for him, asking why he didn’t check the roof, while acknowledging that Dan, and the team, have limited detail. The speaker then shifts to broader context, noting that President Trump was shot, Kennedy was shot, and RFK was shot, implying questions about where people were during such moments. He reflects on the challenges Turning Point faces as it grows exponentially, and the difficulty of determining “the dimensions of what to do” in evolving crises. He questions how they would have access to a roof when campus police have the keys to it, and urges people to calm down. In sum, the speaker recounts the incident involving Charlie’s shooting and Frank Turic’s CPR, rejects online conspiracy theories about hand signals and Dan’s supposed involvement, defends Dan as a believer, and references past presidential shootings to illustrate the difficulty of proactive response as Turning Point expands, concluding with a call to remain calm.

The speaker questioned why Trump continued speaking while police were running around on the ground. The speaker and others pointed out a man with a rifle on the roof to the police, who seemed unaware. The speaker reiterated their confusion about Trump still speaking despite the situation.

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.”

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.

They monitored the area before my speech, but nobody warned me about a man on the roof with a gun. People noticed him and even shouted, yet no action was taken. It was a mistake not to address the situation earlier.

A large crowd is present. Someone is being told they are trespassing. The person speaking says they didn't see any signs. A man is described as "raging" and kicking people out.

The speakers discuss campus CCTV coverage, insisting, "There should be cameras everywhere. Every fucking where." They critique the released footage, saying it "only shows the suspect running and jumping off the roof," and note a "15 minute gap" where he’s allegedly unseen, with cameras supposedly everywhere. They argue the CCTV would have captured him on multiple rooftops—specifically the Losey Center roof at about 12:41, with a jump at 12:23—and say the cops should have that footage. They question the 10 frames per second video and the storage needs, "'76 terabytes' mentioned by an expert." They explore an alternate theory involving the Woodbury Building and the FG Building, needing footage of both for angles and heights, and mention Candace's reporting could throw it out. They reference "two protesters on roofs," Uvalde-style CCTV quality, and a $200 payment to obtain additional footage, with a drive link to be shared.

Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 knew the crowd wouldn't react well to interference. Speaker 1 denies knowing. Speaker 0 mentions the "fuck around and find out" comment after a dumpster was lit on fire. Speaker 1 didn't witness it but tried to move the dumpster. Speaker 0 suggests the comment implies using a gun. Speaker 1 didn't witness and can't confirm. Speaker 0 withdraws the question.