reSee.it - Related Video Feed

'we're not getting the full story because I just spiritually know that more people are involved.' They suspect 'two different people'—'the person in the maroon... is different from the person that's walking up the stairs.' They note 'Something made its way around the entire town, and into my tips line repeatedly' and reference 'It is a very clear image of Tyler Robinson, allegedly taken, I'll say allegedly for safety here.' They want to plot 'this alleged Dairy Queen stop onto our timeline' with '06:38PM' as 'an alleged photo.' They cite politics: 'Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty die hard MAGA,' discuss 'left versus right' and 'the trans thing is here.' They ask, 'Is this AI or is this a female fed that put these messages together?' They note 'squad car parked right by it.' Finally, 'Just show us the footage. Okay? I'm demanding it.'

In a video discussion, Stefan Gardner argues that forensic evidence, particularly dust samples, will effectively end conspiracy theories about who fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk. He contends that dust from the rocks on the roof will leave a unique signature that will be found on the killer’s clothes, the gun, and the shoes, making shoe tread and soil samples crucial to the investigation. Gardner also notes that dust and soil will be found on items connected to the killer’s lay-down on the roof and asserts that gun residue on the killer’s hands would be transferred to the steering wheel, making the killer’s car a major part of the evidence. Responding to this, another speaker, James Lee, mocks the idea that dust matching should come before bullet-to-gun matching, calling the discussion about dust a clownish distraction. The conversation emphasizes the broader expectation that trial evidence will concede to the narrative that the killer’s DNA and shoe dust will identify the perpetrator, while acknowledging public skepticism about the FBI’s presentation of evidence and the timing of disclosures. The speakers contrast the claimed forensic signatures with perceived gaps in the FBI’s narrative, arguing that the investigation will eventually reveal the gun, DNA, and other physical proof at trial. They anticipate that the evidence will demonstrate that the shooter’s shoes and vehicle contain trace material consistent with the crime scene and that the gun was used, but they express doubt about official explanations and the timing or availability of certain evidence, including video footage. A central theme is a critique of the FBI and their handling of the case: the speakers challenge the transparency of the investigation, suggesting that video footage and CCTV evidence should be released to restore public trust. They reference the demand for CCTV footage showing key actions: Tyler Robinson on campus, climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and then fleeing. They assert there is video evidence of the shooting and question why it has not been released, noting claims that 3,000 people witnessed the incident live and that there is video evidence of planning and movement around the campus, including entrances and parking structures. The dialogue also touches on inconsistencies alleged in material evidence, such as a 30-06 round discussion, with the group arguing that even the smallest round would not plausibly produce the described wound at the distances claimed. They insist that standard investigative procedures would include sharing footage and autopsy details, and they demand transparency on the autopsy, CCTV, and video evidence from the crime scene. Overall, the speakers insist that the investigation should present complete video footage and corroborating evidence to verify the narrative surrounding Tyler Robinson and the murder of Charlie Kirk, labeling the current presentation as “slop.”

The speaker presents a video of a suspect's roommate reading a text message allegedly sent at 6:17 AM. The text says, "I love you guys. I made some choices, I love you choices, and you guys don't know anything about this. You guys don't know anything about this. But I'm gonna be gone for a while." The text also says, "I don't wanna say anything more and implicate you in any way because you guys don't know anything about this." The speaker highlights the repetition of "You guys don't know anything about this" in the message. The text concludes with, "I love you guys, and I'm sorry for all the trouble this has caused." A journalist asks to see a photo of the phone screen. The roommate says reading the text is difficult for him. The speaker questions if the roommate knows more than he is saying, based on his nervousness and body language.

"Not always. I just noticed that around some of these exchanges, there's ellipses above them." "Around some of these exchanges, there's ellipses above if you look really closely." "Yeah. And it looks like they're cherry picking certain exchanges." "So that Yeah. My dad is super MAGA just comes out of nowhere because they picked it from a totally different part of the conversation." "Yeah. These messages are clearly doctored is what I would say. They're doctored." "I want every single text message." "I want time stamps." "It's it is conspicuous that you are not telling us when this was sent because it sounds like it's when the campus is on lockdown, and he's gotta go back and gotta clean up." "And you have a right to be a little bit uncomfortable about that because I'm a lot of bit uncomfortable about that. We need full answers."

Yeah. These messages are clearly doctored is what I would say. They're doctored. I want every single text message. I want time stamps. It's conspicuous that you are not telling us when this was sent because it sounds like it's when the campus is on lockdown, and he's gotta go back and he's gotta clean up, and then all of a sudden we're in the next day when his dad is getting clued in after the picture's been released. They're not telling us that. Okay? And you have a right to be a little bit uncomfortable about that, because I'm a lot of bit uncomfortable about that. We need full answers.

Speaker 0 claims to have explosive, verifiable information that can publicly challenge the Zionist-occupied Trump administration to deny it if untrue. They urge Kash Patel to deny the claim if it is false, noting that the information is highly relevant. They credit Mel, who they say was early with the reporting, and say they had heard rumors but sought verifiable proof before going on the limb to assert authenticity. The core assertion is that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The speaker clarifies that these were not VPNs routed through Israel, but 12 personal cell phone accounts opened in Israel. They claim these accounts were on the ground at Utah Valley University on September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was shot. The speaker states that the NSA knows this, Kash Patel knows this, and people in the current administration know that too, and are desperate to keep the information from the public. They question why the administration would want to suppress the information and why it would spook those at the top, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there would be nothing to hide. To anticipate counterarguments, the speaker plays devil’s advocate, noting that perhaps the cell phones belonged to exchange students or Israelis touring UVU that day, or that 12 American students had Israeli-based cell phones after returning from a summer abroad and wished to keep them running in Utah. They acknowledge they do not know the answer and express a desire to know, emphasizing the need to uncover why this information is being concealed and who those 12 Israeli cell phones belonged to. Throughout, the speaker refrains from evaluating the claims’ truth and simply presents the asserted facts and questions, urging accountability and transparency regarding the supposed Israeli cell phone presence and its connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They close by reiterating their dislike of secrets, especially when they pertain to the public figure’s death.

According to the FBI, Tyler was positioned here and took the shot. The video they provided to us, and it's edited. It starts as Tyler's running off the roof, but this is that rooftop vent; had they given us the full video, we should have been able to see Tyler in this area with his back or with his backpack and his gear and assembling, disassembling the gun, whatever the FBI is saying. But instead, we get the video of him running off the roof. We don't get the full video. The camera was positioned somewhere right here. This is the field of view of the camera. So we've got an edited version, and I think we need to push to get the whole version.

- "nobody's come forward with any pictures of the Dodge Challenger leading me to believe there is no Dodge Challenger." - "Maybe it's Tyler." - "Isn't this the famous intersection? No? Is there a back pathway that way?" - "Or does he turn here at this intersection at the LDS Mormon church, which means he would be on the LDS Mormon Church cameras, security cameras." - "Private property they say." - "This to me seems like something that I might have seen in a video or two where the cameras are removed and the FBI confiscates the cameras." - "Why did they do that? Why didn't they just publish all the video from the whole day?" - "There it is. There's the camera. I'm giving the camera a big salute, and you keep going that direction."

The transcript centers on a critical clash over Candace Owens, TP USA, and allegations surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation, focusing on Fort Huachuca, alleged alibis, and competing narratives presented by Candace Owens and her critics. - The speaker positions himself as having known and supported Candace Owens for ten years, but challenges her latest claims, calling them “ridiculous gaslighting” and “nonsense,” and promises to lay out the facts and where they land. - The ongoing dispute involves “Egyptian planes,” a “latest so-called witness and whistleblower,” Mitch Snow, and a broader question about possible foreign or domestic involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, which is tied to a Fort Huachuca narrative. - Mitch Snow is alleged to have claimed that he saw Brian Harpole leaving a meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, and also claimed that Erica Kirk was at Fort Huachuca the night before, at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Owens had hosted Snow’s claims as part of her investigation, and the speaker had previously advised Candace to check alibis. - Candace Owens’ supporters and surrogates allegedly attacked the speaker after he questioned the alibis; he persisted in investigating, noting that the Fort Huachuca storyline had “completely blown up” with those alibis. - The narrative shifts to Erica Kirk, with Owens stating she had claimed she did not say the military was involved and did not implicate TP USA, despite compilations of past statements suggesting otherwise. The speaker contends Owens moved the goalposts multiple times and used the Fort Huachuca angle as a distraction from a prior Egyptian plane storyline. - The speaker asserts exclusive access to HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the TP USA spokesperson, which purportedly show that Owens’ depiction of Andrew Colvin’s involvement in “secret damage control” is a fraud. He claims to reveal that Colvin was coordinating with Paramount Tactical, not Owens directly, and that Colvin reached out to Owens’ team with alibi requests regarding Erica Kirk. - A key incident involves a screenshot and a time-stamped image Erica Kirk allegedly sent to Colvin showing her with her kids at 08:33, purportedly from Phoenix, which Owens used as part of her alibi apparatus. The speaker presents this as evidence that Colvin’s communications were not a cover-up but a regular PR exercise, and that Owens used the image to claim a broader conspiracy. - The speaker narrates a back-and-forth where Colvin allegedly provided an alibi for Erica Kirk; he shows that Kirk sent photos from a park and home, and Colvin responded three hours later, asking not to display the photo publicly but to acknowledge the proof. Owens denies the alibi and reframes it as desperate behavior by TP USA. - The discussion expands to broader personnel and planes-related details: an undersecretary of the army allegedly went to Fort Huachuca on the eighth; a defense department border inspection visit is cited as context for why Fort Huachuca is significant. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should be on the ninth and the alleged base alibis, not the eighth. - The speaker accuses Owens of simulating a “gaslighting operation” and notes that she has discredited alibis by shifting attention to new claims; he maintains that the “ninth” is the core question, not the earlier Fort Huachuca references. - The narrative includes a conflict with commentators such as Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, and The Daily Wire, and alleges that Owens’ circle has manipulated public perception to undermine TP USA and Charlie Kirk. - The speaker concludes with a denunciation of Owens’ tactics, insisting that the public should focus on the Charlie Kirk murder case and its true facts, while alleging Owens uses a pattern of deception, moving from one narrative to another to distract from the nine’s alleged details. He calls for prayer for Candace Owens and urges supporters to consider the broader battle against perceived globalist manipulation; he also frames this as a spiritual or existential conflict in which truth is being contested. Note: Promotional or advertising content included toward the end of the original transcript has been omitted.

Ongoing investigation on the active shooter leads us to 'a trans liberal with a Republican dad.' 'That'll create some division.' The FBI: 'Get in, Tyler' and 'Thirty three hours.' The FBI is described as triaging and 'hard at work coming up with a solid script to present to the public.' They propose using 'chat GPT to generate us a story of young gay lovers from the twenties.' 'We trusted you with the Epstein files. We definitely can trust you with this.' 'Trust your government. Noticing is antiseptic.' Officials claim 'we might have found our suspect texting his furry lover,' though 'nobody my age sounds like that.' They assert 'he disassembled the rifle to fit it in his pants' and say 'the suspect's father turned him in' after video enhancement. Critics ask, 'Seems like they could just show the actual footage' and ask, 'Do they think we're retarded or something?'

"And just last night, the suspect was taken into custody at 10PM local time in less than thirty six hours, 30 three to be precise." "For thirty three hours, I was I was praying that that if this had to happen here, that it wouldn't be one of us." "This thing is not commercial at all. It is most likely a surveillance drone and someone was flying it over the campus for a particular reason." "The main suspect in Kirk's killing is now Tyler Robinson and he is in custody." "This translates to approximately one in 2,000,000,000." "The FBI agents didn't even bother to show him the photos of the shooter for twelve hours." "Yes. Yes. So when he's first spotted on campus, he has different clothing on," "Look folks, it's very easy to just believe whatever we're being told, but we cannot afford to do that anymore."

Speaker 0 notes, “not always… around some of these exchanges, there’s ellipses above them,” and adds it looks like they’re “cherry picking certain exchanges… Yeah. My dad is super MAGA just comes out of nowhere because they picked it from a totally different part of the conversation.” Speaker 1 replies, “These messages are clearly doctored is what I would say. They’re doctored.” They speculate why, suggesting, “Tyler’s being corp you know, forthcoming. We’re protecting him in some capacity.” They call it “unacceptable. K? Unacceptable. I want every single text message. I want time stamps.” They argue it’s “conspicuous that you are not telling us when this was sent because it sounds like it’s when the campus is on lockdown, and he’s gotta go back and gotta clean up. And then all of a sudden, we’re in the next day when his dad is getting clued in after the picture’s been released.” They conclude, “They’re not telling us that. Okay? … We need full answers.”

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

The segment analyzes questions about an alleged text-message exchange between Tyler Robinson and his boyfriend regarding the Charlie Kirk shooting, presenting an “official transcript” of messages and highlighting apparent inconsistencies. Key lines cited include: "Robinson, drop what you are doing and look under my keyboard." "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it." "I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still." "I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age." "Robinson, I am. I'm sorry." "If I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence." "Remember how I was engraving bullets?" "Delete this exchange." The piece notes questions about timelines, absence of time stamps, and camera footage, and quotes: "I'm gonna turn myself in willingly." "Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA." It concludes that online observers question the narrative and possible discrepancies with authorities’ statements.

Speaker 0 presents text messages as authentic and not fabricated, stating that they are real and showing the date and time on their phone to prove it. They emphasize, “These are not made up text messages,” and insist the messages are real, noting they looked them up on their phone and that the date and time slide. They reference the phrase “Iron sharpens iron” and describe it as part of a dominance partnership. They explain that “Each hand washes the other” and that this is what Christ talked about as true partnership—reliant yet separate. They say that there is struggle and disagreement, but each side gets stronger and sharper because of the other, and that this is how they are describing their partnership. They reiterate that the messages are real and dismiss the idea of fabrication as “absolute nonsense.” They question what the point would be of making up messages, asking, “What would be the point of that?” Earlier in the message, they state they were very clear at the beginning of the entire thing: “no fakeness and no gayness.” They mention a hypothetical involving Charlie: if you didn’t get along with Charlie, you shouldn’t think you could simply drop a million dollars and rewrite history. They acknowledge that money might exist in such a situation, but assert that truth is on their side: “We have truth. That’s what’s on our side.” Overall, the speaker uses the presented text messages to illustrate a partnership described as mutual strengthening through interdependence, framed within a religious concept of true partnership. They underscore the authenticity of the messages, reject claims of fabrication, and contrast money with truth in their stance.

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?"

Discussion centers on campus CCTV coverage and the shooting timeline. "There should be cameras everywhere. Every fucking where." They say "the only thing they show us is him running and jumping off the roof afterwards." Timestamps are debated: "the time stamp on him jumping off the roof is 12:23" and there was footage "two minutes before the shooting." They claim the perimeter is fully surveilled: "not one square inch of that outer perimeter ... wasn't on camera" and that footage would be "backed up to a cloud." A critique notes that "Columbine shooting in 1999" footage exceeds what was released. They ask why the full sequence wasn't released, seeking "videos of that, and we need heights, angles, and video of that to be able to see if indeed," and discuss alternate shot points at the "Woodbury Building" and the "Fugal Gateway Building." They plan to obtain more footage via a drive link.

Are you saying parents cause problems? Should someone in charge of family outreach be complaining about parents? I don't know what you're talking about. Is that me in that video? I have no idea. I have no comment, so stand back. You can keep your hands off me.

In the discussion, the speakers focus on forensic details and the handling of evidence surrounding the Charlie Kirk case and Tyler Robinson. Stefan Gardner is cited as stating that “dust samples alone will go a long way in ending speculation about Tyler Robinson fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk,” arguing that the dust on the rocks will have a unique signature and will be on the killer’s clothes, gun, and shoes. The dust and soil samples are expected to show dust on the tread of shoes and soil where the gun was laid, and gun residue on the hands from handling the weapon. A forensic expert is quoted saying the roof where the shooting occurred was covered in pebbles and rocks, so dust signatures will be found on the shooter’s clothes, gun, and shoes, and that the car is also a major part of the evidence due to dust, soil, and gun residue on the steering wheel from the shooter’s hands. There is discussion about the sequence of events: the shooter allegedly disassembling or reassembling the gun, laying down a towel, firing, rolling up the gun, and leaving within about fourteen seconds to flee into the woods. The possibility is mentioned that the shooter could be identified by dust on the gear and by the car evidence. James Lee responds to the crowd, accusing others of focusing on dust samples while dismissing the need to first match the bullet to a gun, calling out the discussion as clownish. The conversation anticipates trial evidence including shoe DNA and other forensic marks, with a sense that official video footage might be suppressed or lost while experts testify about the evidence. The speakers criticize the FBI narrative, arguing that none of the FBI’s presented evidence has made sense, particularly challenging the 30-06 caliber discussion. They reference a prior demonstration with a 30-06 round fired into a setup of meat to simulate a neck wound, a steel plate, and a two-liter bottle, asserting that even the smallest 30-06 round would not produce the described result at the distance claimed, and suggesting Tyler Robinson would have been inside 150 yards. There is insistence that video footage exists and should be released to restore trust, including CCTV footage showing Tyler Robinson’s movements on campus—climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and sprinting away. They call for CCTV footage and autopsy video to be released, along with video showing Tyler Robinson at the crime scene for four hours, arguing that the investigation would be more transparent if these materials were made public rather than kept from the public eye. The speakers express distrust of the FBI and other agencies, alleging deep state manipulation and claiming that video and DNA evidence could be forged or misrepresented, while demanding concrete, visible evidence in the form of footage and autopsy details.

Investigators identified an individual as the roommate of Robinson, who stated that his roommate referring to Robinson made a joke on Discord. He opened it and showed several messages to investigators and allowed investigators to take photos of the screen as each message was shown by Robinson's roommate. These photos consisted of various messages, including content of messages between the phone contact name Tyler with an emoji icon and Robinson's roommate's device. The content of these messages included messages affiliated with the contact Tyler stating a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point. Discord said: "In a statement to NBC News, a Discord spokesperson said the company did identify an account belonging to the suspect, but said the messages mentioned in the news conference were not believed to have been sent on Discord." "The messages referenced in recent reporting about planning details do not appear to be Discord messages." These were communications between the roommate and a friend after the shooting, where the roommate was recounting the contents of a note the suspect had left elsewhere; "The messages aren't between Tyler, the alleged shooter, and his roommate." They were about Tyler, not from him. This seems to contradict the governor's claims; "The governor never mentioned that these communications were between the roommate and another person." The governor started by saying the roommate told the FBI that Tyler sent him a joke, and then goes on to detail how Tyler allegedly told the roommate to watch over the area where the gun was placed. But asking someone to watch the area where the gun was placed doesn't sound like a joke. It sounds like a deliberate order to assist with the cover up of an assassination. And now, the shooter's own grandmother says the FBI have the wrong man: "There is no way Robinson could be involved. ... I don't think he ever shot a gun to tell you the truth, ... He doesn't own any guns." Up until this point, we haven't heard from the father or any other family members. This raises a very serious issue because right now there are two pieces of evidence that the FBI and the governor of Utah is presenting to the public as evidence that Tyler is the shooter. One is that his father convinced Tyler to turn himself in, and two, the supposed Discord messages. With the Discord messages already being called into question, and since we haven't heard from his father, we shouldn't consider this case closed.

Claim: 'Because we now have CCTV footage of Tyler Robinson at a different location than the university twenty minutes after the shooting.' The footage comes from 'convict to conservative,' a channel with 536 followers, pushed to 5-10k. 'Les Effer Lounge' (Pia) DM’d Ryan that she has footage of Tyler twenty minutes after the shooting; the FBI pinged Tyler's cell phone at this location and asked for CCTV. She shows security cams and asks, 'do you guys want me to do anything with this?' The FBI replied, 'That's all we needed. We got copies of it.' Time stamps: 12:44; 12:46; 12:47. The footage 'shed so much shade on the FBI's narrative' and questions why Tyler would be in a parking lot after the allegedly 'blew Charlie Kirk's head off.' Text messages: 'the FBI, when the cell phone was turned on, it sent a signal, and he said it was here.'

So everyone knows that these text messages are insanely fake, right? No one refers to their car as a vehicle, unless you're in law enforcement. Nobody says squad car. You would just say, Oh my God, I just saw a cop. No 22 year old refers to their parent as my old man. I left the rifle wrapped in a towel. Nobody would write step by step. And when he talks about the engravings, he says, mostly a big meme. You gotta read these texts for yourself, because nobody talks like this. Nobody texts like this, and no young person uses the words vehicle, drop point. This is just way too convenient.

- I recognized an individual and 'have taken down the cameras minute four after Charlie was shot? The back camera of all the ones when you take the front camera.' - 'I've never seen that. He's never been behind me at an event. He's never been lingering around me at an event.' - I asked about 'his presence behind Charlie' and 'the mysterious phone call ... minute three after Charlie was assassinated.' - He told me explicitly that 'they were trying something new that day. Like, it was something new. Charlie's super ambitious. And on the AV thing, they were trying something new, and they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly to Arizona.' - 'None of it makes sense to me because these events are typically livestreamed. But again, something new. Okay?'

Addressing chatter about a text chain released by Candace Owens, the screen grab is authentic. He didn’t share publicly because it was private and he didn’t want to betray a friend's trust, but he shared it with some in government since it happened quickly. It took thirty three hours for authorities to get their suspect, and in the first moments they wanted no stone unturned. He says, 'we want justice for Charlie more than anybody else, and no stone unturned.' He notes, 'it was not mine to share publicly.' 'It's been so frustrating to have people blow up about this,' and explains, 'I am an eyewitness to events, and they said, don't comment on things because anything you say can mess that up. I don't want to mess up any trial for the person who did this.'