TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"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.

Yes. I saw him. What's called? Are you recording this?' 'Yes. You're live right now. Well, we're we're recording. I don't know if we're live because of the cell service.' They add, 'standing in probably the third okay. I was standing from probably the third row in the bottom. I saw hit. I heard the shot ring out. I looked to my left, and then I looked over to my right.' 'I saw him slump over in his chair forward. He slumped over. He had blood coming from the left side of his neck down his shirt,' The narrator concludes, 'This guy says a man died today. This is unconfirmed. That's what this eyewitness testimony just said. Everybody's in shock, including myself.'

We still have, basically confirmation he got shot. His right, exit out the left. If I had to guess, I would say he got hit at the base of the skull. He didn't die from blood loss. He died instantly which would mean it either hit spinal or the base of the base of the brain or either some some portion of the brain that would take everything out. So, what I'm saying is the FBI is lying. This is most likely entry somewhere in this vicinity somewhere in this vicinity, it hits bone and it projects itself outward through the neck. Keep your eye on this space here where the red circle is as the next clip plays.

I now have from a confirmed source: "He was hit in the chest, which is what we saw right here. 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 think that Tyler dude is a patsy." "First, he drives and drops this gun off in the woods. Then he drives and parks his car on campus. Then he walks back to the woods to get the gun, then he puts the gun in his pants, and he walks to campus, climbs on the roof, changes his outfit, then takes the shot." "This is what we call slop, folks. Slop." "Please do not send me any more videos of any other angles of this being a side shooter." "The side shooter, no. It had to have come from straight on, most likely a long rifle from a much farther distance. I personally think that there is somebody much farther back than that. I think that dude on the roof is a patsy." "Charlie Kirk was hit with a bullet, and they carried that body to the hospital. When it arrived there, his chest was caved in. The vest ricocheted up into his neck, most likely hitting his spine. That's why you see his neck tilt like that and he falls over." "Some people are saying he made ninety minutes. Definitely didn't feel a thing."

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."

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.

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

The speaker asserts a 100% proof that Ashley Babbitt was not shot and begins by giving credit to Jesus Christ, stating that “his spirit, his spirit of truth that revealed to my heart that something was off.” They claim to have spent a lot of time analyzing the videos. The speaker references John Sullivan’s footage and claims that “the gun” makes a quick movement, and that it is shooting “really low in comparison to Ashley Babbitt's neck.” They point to the upper right-hand corner of the frame, asserting that “you’ll see something move,” and claim that “we get the rare opportunity of seeing the travel of the bullet.” Returning to a scene from mainstream media, the speaker describes Helmet Boy bashing the windows and moving toward the final window—“the one that must have been installed with thumbtacks because he knocks it out in one shot.” They observe the wooden window trim and propose that it will be hit by the pathway of the bullet, asking the audience to watch and stating, “Did you see that?” The speaker claims to have obtained “a clear shot of which way the bullet actually went after it left the gun.” They state that viewers might think the bullet hit the window trim and then Ashley Babbitt, which they argue could happen if the shooter were in front of Ashley, but claim instead that “the shooter is shooting from the side of Ashley.” Consequently, they declare that what they have shown provides “a really clear shot that Ashley Babbitt did not get shot by that bullet.”

There was a lone shooter, and we had grainy footage of somebody jumping off a roof; it was established there was one person we were looking for, and that gave us the shooting scene at a spot about 140 yards away with roof indents. "where that shot was allegedly taken from with the weapon allegedly used, is a 30 aught six, the wound is entirely inconsistent with that weapon in that spot. It really just couldn't have happened exactly like they said. This is a very easy through and through round. This is not there's really no bones in the way." "And the way ballistics works is is bullets go in a straight line until and unless something acts on them. ... there was no exit wound." "Right? So what do we do with that information? And the only thing I can think to do with that information is to posit that this round shot at this angle would have gone through and through the neck easy. It probably would have gone through five necks in a row."

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

"there is a spot on the shirt. And that spot on the shirt also correlates with the very top edge of this body armor." "the first appearance of an entrance wound" "What is very clear to me is that we had a round that impact the upper edge of his body armor, and then that round deflected directly upward." "deflected directly upward and up into his cranial cavity." "I’m fairly certain that that projectile is still inside of his body." "I think Charlie was dead the moment right at impact." "there was reports that he was in critical condition, that there was a pulse."

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

So you know the kid who was asking Charlie Kirk a question when Charlie got shot? Remember him? Everyone's feeling bad for him? Yeah. There's video footage of him practicing his reaction before it happened. So when Charlie got shot, you know, his reaction was to put his hands on his head, look shocked, shake a little bit. Yeah. He was doing that. He was practicing that in the crowd, and here's the freaking video. How are you gonna deny what you just saw there? How? And you already know what question, you know, he was asking Charlie. Right? Remember that? This just confirms what a lot of us have been thinking and what we all think actually happened. Sick.

"Now I can tell you the part that he is telling the truth about is that Charlie's neck indeed did stop the bullet without question." "Charlie Kirk was shot from the front and the bullet did not exit." "And at least a fragment of the bullet was recovered from his neck." "They did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "They found a 30 odd six bullets." "Charlie's death certificate certainly would have reflected that." "There is not one reflected onto Charlie Kirk's death certificate because they did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "Andrew has claimed that he had a conversation with the surgeon who offered up the idea that it really was just your modern Christian miracle." "What are we to make of that?"

Rob was asked about his viral comments on the Piers Morgan show and the ongoing discussion around Charlie Kirk’s assassination. He says from the outset he smelled a rat and didn’t buy the official narrative being spun. He notes that when he first heard Kirk was shot and saw the video, an exit wound coming out of the neck and the movement of the shirt suggested an impact nearby, which didn’t fit what he’d expect from his experience with ballistics. Rob describes the sequence: the FBI announces they’ve got the shooter, a man on the roof “took it apart,” put a scope on, fired a cold bore shot, then jumped to a roof, wrapped it up, and sent texts that didn’t sound like a 22-year-old. He says he’s typically drawn to the simplest explanation, but asking questions leads to being torn down. He emphasizes he never claimed Israel was responsible, but says asking questions is met with accusations of antisemitism. He raises questions about security procedures after Kirk was down, asking what happened to the lapel mic, the SIM card, and who took the camera behind him, and whether crime-scene contamination occurred, whether the area was repaved or rebuilt, and whether the gravesite exists and how the stadium event was organized so quickly. Rob recounts how, when he asks questions, he’s labeled antisemitic or a conspiracy theorist, even though he says he’s “killed a bunch of people for the country” and wants to know why a great American was killed in front of everyone. He notes the FBI’s inconsistent statements, such as claiming the weapon was a 30-06 rifle, showing a gun image, and various excuses like a ricochet off body armor followed by later claims that there was no body armor, then again something else. He questions what would happen to a neck with a 30-06, suggests the autopsy report should be released, and asks why the chair and desk were moved, implying potential forensic implications. Speaker 1 (Rob) emphasizes uncertainty: he wasn’t there, so he can’t say for certain, but there are questions about whether a shot was taken or if a shaped charge or other device could have been involved. He asks where the gun, the bullets, and the ballistic evidence are, and why there isn’t clear video showing the moment the shot was fired. He notes that much of the official footage is “potato footage” from many cameras, while the supposed key video isn’t released. Towards the end, the host comments on common accusations and mislabeling when challenging the official narrative. Rob thanks the host, and they acknowledge continuing discussions, with Rob offering to provide “solid conspiracies.” They close with mutual well-wishes and a light joke about conspiracies.

"I said that the sniper, the BA sniper, actually shot from right here." This is where the BA sniper shot from, right here. "The first shot was taken from the BA sniper." "That little blink that you just saw, that is the actual flash that's coming from the muzzle of the sniper rifle." He ties the event to "the infrared beam" and notes "This is why the infrared beam was on the cell phone." He describes "the arm pop out behind the cell phone to give the signal to take the shot." "This is your guy right here. This is him." He asks, "Who is he? Where is he going?" He states "The man was killed by his own team" and adds "scratch it." He references "This is Phil Lyman right here in the middle of your screen" and points to "That person in the red circle right there, that's the sniper. He came from this location right here." He concludes, "This is your guy" and reiterates, "So whatever everybody's telling you, scratch it."

The autopsy showed the bullet was fired at a downward angle, indicating someone else shot him while he was sitting down. The speaker and her husband plan to create a virtual reality video for court to demonstrate what happened. The victim had another head injury, evidenced by a fallen dustbin, toothpick, and blood in the sink around 10:10 PM, his last browser history. The speaker believes he was attacked from behind while brushing his teeth, possibly electrocuted or paralyzed, then held up and shot. The speaker believes the gunshot wound was not the cause of death because the bullet didn't touch the brain, only causing unconsciousness. She suspects he may have been suffocated. The speaker called the apartment at 12:15 PM on the 23rd, and it rang once before going to voicemail, leading her to believe the killers were still there. She suggests using geofencing to determine who was at the complex and calls for a thorough investigation.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss contemporary conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk. They state they do not believe the theory that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and, as it stands right now, think it was Tyler Robinson. They both agree on this point regarding the alleged killer. Speaker 1 shifts to addressing Nick Fuentes, noting they weren’t going to come for him until he called Ian Carroll “retarded.” Ian Carroll allegedly appeared in a livestream pleading with Speaker 0 to join in on the conspiracy. Speaker 1 repeats the insult, saying, “If you think that I feel sorry for you because you are retarded.” They challenge the credibility of claims about a “furry trans lover” storyline, asserting that discord’s own statements say the furry trans motive screenshots didn’t come from their servers. The discussion moves to alleged forensic and investigative inconsistencies. They reference a father identifying his son from a grainy rooftop silhouette before police have real evidence, and claim that the FBI has four-k footage showing the shot but left that part out. They question the ballistic details: a .30-06 round, known for blowing through concrete blocks and obliterating bone, allegedly gets stopped by Charlie’s “Superman like neck.” They note the absence of visible ballistic mess or blood spatter and question how bulletproof the spine would be. They claim the rifle was “disassembled within seconds after taking the shot” yet was found “fully assembled in the woods.” They state that the shooter stuffs the rifle in his pants to jump off, which clashes with the rifle being recovered fully assembled. They express skepticism about the overall narrative, suggesting that Nick Fuentes may be paid off or had his career threatened over this issue, and conclude that whatever the truth is, it is “not a good look” for Nick Fuentes. In summary, the speakers reject the claim that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and attribute it to Tyler Robinson; they criticize Nick Fuentes for engaging with conspiratorial narratives, challenge the veracity of related forensic and anecdotal claims, highlight inconsistencies in timelines and weapon handling, and suggest possible financial or career motive implications, framing the situation as damaging for Nick Fuentes.

Yes. You're live right now. Well, we're we're recording. I don't know if we're live because of the cell service. So Hang on. I saw hit. I heard the shot ring out. I looked to my left, and then I looked over to my right. I saw him slump over in his chair forward. He slumped over. He had blood coming from the left side of his neck down his shirt, and he slumped over, and he was carried off. This guy says a man died today. This is unconfirmed. That's what this eyewitness testimony just said. Standing in probably the third okay. I was standing from probably the third row in the bottom.

The speaker references Rob O’Neill and “the other dozens of high level firearms experts” who have created content on this topic, stating that all of them have done range testing, including the speaker who personally tested with 30-06 rounds. He describes conducting a ballistics test using a variety of targets: sheep bone, cow vertebrae, cow femurs, cow femurs wrapped in 10 inches of meat, and even literal half-inch steel. He notes that ten other creators have also performed tests, and asserts that in 100% of the ballistics testing done so far, the 30-06 has blown straight through everything tested. He asks listeners to consider a specific question: why is there no video from Matt Tardio recreating the FBI narrative shot, and why doesn’t that video exist? He challenges others to take their gun to the range and replicate the test, insisting that they can obtain a 100% realistic ballistic human anatomy head set at 139 yards with a nine-degree slope and a nine-degree offset to replicate the shot, and to show the results. The speaker then recounts his own testing process and results. He says he took his time at the range with his guns to see if he could produce results that would match the narrative he’s questioning, and he says his testing showed certain outcomes. He then cites specific demonstrations from his range work: first, the cow neck vertebrae “ exploded.” He then mentions cow femurs, describing them as gigantic and “a 100 times stronger than a human neck,” explaining why the discussion is focusing on the neck region. He continues with another example and states, “That’s why we’re hitting next.” He attempts to review the results again, saying, “Maybe I didn’t. Here we go. I’m going back.” He concludes with an observation: “Oh, look. It exploded. Went right through. Maybe I did, miss.”

- 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?'

"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."

"there is a spot on the shirt." "And that spot on the shirt also correlates with the very top edge of this body armor." "Here we see a fairly massive wound." "What is very clear to me is that we had a round that impact the upper edge of his body armor, and then that round deflected directly upward." "the wound larger, both because of its deformation and now its angle of entry, and it's also probably fragmented as well." "I never saw that exit wound." "I think it's because basically we had that round hit deflect directly upward and up into his cranial cavity." "The projectile is still inside of his body." "Charlie was dead the moment right at impact." "There was reports that he was in critical condition, that there was a pulse."

"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."

"I thought the feds were saying they were looking for a bullet at some point, which is now very alarming to me. I don't understand that. How could they have been looking for a bullet? Because if I'm not seeing, and there isn't. I'm telling you, what happens in the front is not what happens in the back at all." "If I'm not seeing any blood, what what are we to take from that? The only thing that could make sense if what they're saying is true and that person took the shot from the place that they are saying that individual took the shot from, it would suggest that it it's a it it was inside of Charlie. Right? And they would know that. The feds would have known that." "So they would have communicated that they were never looking for a bullet."