reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Candace seeks help identifying Cooper Brown, the person who shoved a microphone away from a speaker at Utah Valley University's Charlie Kirk event. Brown later appeared on Fox News as eyewitness, described as a Leadership Institute volunteer who was 'feet away from Charlie' when the shot rang out and who 'held the microphone' during the event. Witnesses who 'heard multiple shots' were not given mainstream-media interviews; a viral clip shows a witness describing a gunshot and a man slumping, with skepticism about the shooter's origin. The video subject is clarified as not Andrew Colvert of Turning Point USA, and not a TPUSA employee or UVU student; instead, he is a volunteer connected to a TPUSA event, prompting questions about his background, the use of volunteers to manage microphones, and why he spoke to Fox News. Speaker asks for information from Southern New Hampshire University folks who might know Cooper Brown.

This is the Israeli company that went and grabbed the device or whatever it is allegedly. Watch the lavalier lapel mic. Do you see it explode? That is the explosion from Charlie Kirk's lavalier lapel mic. Remember when we told you that that was absolutely an exit wound? Yeah, it is. First, we had exploding pagers. Now we have exploding mics. That proves that all of the activity came from the mic that Charlie Kirk was wearing. Remember the palm gun guy in the brown shirt, that shadowy looking guy with the sunglasses? He pushes the detonator. This guy, brown shirt guy, he's the assassin.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 describes Skyler as having given about four different interviews online right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. She notes he is seen with glasses on top of his head, front row at the scene, and somehow sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial during the memorial service. She asks, “Who is this guy? How is this possible? And why are his interviews so odd?” She points out that on the day of the shooting Skyler was in the front row and near a bodyguard. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 recount Skyler’s position: “Maybe 10 or 15 feet away when it happened. Close as he could.” They describe Skyler with sunglasses on his head, and a Charlie Kirk bodyguard in front of him, with Skyler off to the side in the corner when Charlie began taking questions. They note the bodyguard is directly in front of Charlie, Skyler to the side, matching Skyler’s own account of being “front row, Noel in front of him,” with a bodyguard to his left and one in front of him. They say Skyler was “front row and center.” Speaker 0 then says Skyler later appeared sitting on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial, with a floor pass for a press conference, literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They claim this is documented on Skyler’s Facebook page. They mention Skyler’s Facebook shows two, perhaps “two point, I think, k” followings, with from 2018 to 02/2025 only about seven posts and about 10 pictures, implying a sparse content profile for a “digital creator.” Speaker 3 describes Skyler’s earlier claim about getting into the stadium: “Just made it to the stadium. There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. … There’s been people waiting in line since 05:30 in the morning.” He says Skyler went past multiple security layers to obtain a media badge and a floor pass, and then ended up on the Main Floor “a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial.” The speakers question how he could gain access and yet appear to be late, then have a media pass and seating positions. Speaker 4 adds, “So, again, why go into detail acting as if you were late, you didn’t even know you were gonna get in, yet somehow you end up with a passing all these checkpoints to get a media pass around your deck, end up on the First, you know, Main Floor just a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial that day. It’s just like it’s a big act, a big show that this guy's putting on. It’s like he was handpicked to do all these interviews. He was handpicked to have front row that day because he was up, you know, farther up in the crowd before Charlie got there.” Speaker 4 closes with a segment featuring a clip of another person describing a mythic, imagery-laden interpretation: “An indecision night. I photoshopped in my mind. I photoshopped the blood away. I photoshopped Charlie, sat him back up, put his smile back on, and rewound the tape… I rewound the bullet going back up into the rifle. I stuck a flower inside the rifle.”

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 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 recounts a chain of rumors and revelations following Charlie’s assassination at Turning Point USA. Water cooler chatter and tip-box tips revealed that several insiders were troubled by management and behavior at the organization, and one rumor stood out: Justin Strife allegedly placed an immediate phone call to a donor prospect on the day of Charlie’s death. The caller was speculated to be connected to a donor who had “a pretty big piece of bait on the hook for Turning Point USA”—a billionaire-level investment tied to the company’s potential IPO, described as life-changing money, possibly in the billions. This donor was said to be French American, named Pierre, with the speaker later realizing the donor could be Pierre DuPont, after mentioning the DuPont family in previous coverage. Only a handful of people were said to know about this secret, implying it was highly top-secret within the donations department, to the point where some involved at Turning Point USA had no knowledge of it. The speaker pursued corroboration with multiple sources at Turning Point USA, seeking to identify which donor was so central and why an immediate call would be significant. The possibility that a donor could be so influential as to impact an IPO and be worth billions raised questions about why such an offer would be on the table and whether Charlie himself knew about it. The speaker notes that billionaires typically do not part with money in this way, especially by offering pieces of their company to non-family members, amplifying the sense that the situation was troubling and entangled in dark, secretive dealings. Additionally, the speaker mentions another line of inquiry involving Andrew Colbert, a close family friend. A contact allegedly told the speaker that Andrew claimed Charlie’s refusal of “Bebe” caused him to miss out on millions, which the speaker flags as another rumor to be investigated. The broader concern is understanding the financial and contractual framework behind these tips and whether compensation or “tips” related to donations might be influencingPR decisions. The speaker underscores the need for transparent answers about who Pierre is, whether the donor is indeed Pierre DuPont, and how an IPO-sized fortune could be on the line. The emphasis is on demanding a clear explanation of these alleged connections, the nature of the secret, and the implications for Turning Point USA. The unresolved questions are framed around Pierre, his identity, and the alleged secret that could have changed the organization’s finances and leadership dynamics.

Charles Macklintok Wilson, a photographer, was covering the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The group sought his firsthand experience of that day. Wilson described the moment the shot occurred as happening quickly; security guards jumped in to aid Charlie Kirk, and people began to run. Wilson recalled that many believed the noise was fireworks at first. When asked how many gunshots he heard, Wilson said, “Me personally, I heard one gunshot.” He described his initial reaction: he saw Charlie Kirk, went down, and took photos of people helping him. He mentioned he released one photo, known as the last photo of a Charlie Kirk alive, and stated he had other photos from the moment of the shooting but did not release them. He explained he did have photos of Charlie Kirk behind the tent and of the moment after the bullet struck, but he no longer has those photos, saying he didn’t want his kids to see them. Wilson considered whether the photos could help with the investigation, noting that if Charlie Kirk’s people reached out to him, he would respond. He recounted that at around 2 a.m. on the day, someone from Charlie Kirk’s circle reached out to EVU, and they told him to contact Turning Point USA. He described a later exchange with Turning Point USA’s team: a female staff member contacted him regarding press credentials, asking if he could attend the event. The question raised was why Turning Point USA did not reach out directly sooner, given the availability of clear crowd photos. The conversation included a specific exchange that appears in the transcript: someone from Turning Point USA’s team, identified as Aubrey Laitsch (Aubrey Laitsch, PR manager for TPUSA), sent a message: “Hi, Charles. My name is Aubrey Laitsch, and I am the PR manager for TPUSA. Did you happen to go to the event at UVU today? It was mentioned to me that you wanted to come as press.” Wilson confirmed he was at the event and expressed sorrow over Charlie Kirk’s death, stating, “Such an awful day.” He notes that Aubrey did not respond to his reply. Overall, Wilson’s account centers on: the rapid shooting incident, the immediate reaction of security and bystanders, his personal photographic record (including the last photo alive) and his decision not to release certain photos out of consideration for the family, the potential use of the photos in an investigation, and a later outreach from Turning Point USA staff regarding press credentials, including the non-response from Aubrey Laitsch.

The speaker presents a critical, conspiratorial view of Joe Rogan’s podcast and the broader ecosystem around Rogan, arguing that Rogan’s success is driven by corporate and cultural agendas rather than organic content. The core claim is that Rogan functions as a pivotal asset for information-age influence, with a web of sponsors, investors, and associated figures who push a planned “brave new world” through technology, medicine, and media. Key sponsors, connections, and networks are highlighted: - Cash App is noted as a major sponsor, with the presenter looping in a broader network that includes Jack Dorsey; but the presentation also emphasizes lesser-known sponsors and their influence. - 23andMe is described as a significant sponsor. The presenter identifies 23andMe as co-founded and owned by Ann Wajarski and notes her family connections to Susan Wajarski (CEO of YouTube) and Sergey Brin (Google cofounder), connecting the company to a larger tech and governance milieu. The claim is that Rogan promoted 23andMe for health-risk data, implying a broader agenda behind the database. - Esther Dyson is singled out as a 23andMe board member who is involved in private aviation, commercial space startups, healthcare, and genetics. Dyson is described as a founder of Space Angels Networks and an investor in XCOR, Constellation Services, Zero Icon Aircraft, Space Adventures, and Mars One. Mars One is labeled a scam, used as part of a broader pattern of commercial and privatized space funding within Rogan’s circle. - The broader claim is that commercial privatization of space is a recurring motif in Rogan’s network, serving as a funnel for money to support other movements and agendas, including information-age assets like Rogan. Elon Musk is discussed as a de facto sponsor, though not listed as an official sponsor. The speaker recounts a clip where a participant says, “I just got a Tesla,” interpreting it as a sign that Elon Musk is subsidizing Rogan’s content. The Musk-Rogan connection is tied to the Neuralink brain-implant agenda and the broader promotion of brain-computer interfaces. A 2019 Rogan podcast clip is cited where mind-reading, read-thought, and universal language concepts are discussed as inevitabilities, with the claim that Rogan promoted Neuralink long before Musk’s public push. The speaker argues Rogan’s discussions around mind-reading and brain-computer interfaces constitute an agenda to normalize these technologies. Third-wave/information-age themes are emphasized as part of a long-running agenda: - The speaker connects Rogan’s content to Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave, information overload, and the idea that the “future shock” of rapid change has been anticipated since 1980. The term “information overload” is linked to a broader “problem-reaction-solution” framework, aimed at enabling a “brave new world.” - The “bigger plan” is discussed through the lens of the “centrist unifying movement” and a narrative where technology, plant-based medicines, and new solutions to big pharma are framed as miraculous, but also as forms of social control. On the Onnit/Aubrey Marcus axis: - Onnit is presented as another layer of this network, with Aubrey Marcus described as founder and CEO of Onnit, and the brand as a hub for connections to Rogan and other Rosetta-stone players. Onnit’s leadership is associated with Pentagon and DARPA ties, and with Jan Irvin’s framing as an agent connected to the Soros network. - The speaker describes allegations of sexual coercion and other controversies around Aubrey Marcus and, more broadly, accuses a “shell-company” network (Aubrey Marcus’s father Michael Marcus; multiple name changes; alleged oil ventures) of enabling scams and profits in ways that intersect with the Rogan network. - The Brain-Force/Alpha Brain marketing and other Rogan-endorsed supplements are discussed as part of Rogan’s monetized ecosystem, including alleged parallels between Brain Force and Alpha Brain. MAPS, Hefner Institute, and the psychedelic-medication axis: - MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) is described as Rockefeller-funded and linked to the Hefner Institute; the speaker accuses MAPS of promoting psychedelics under the cover of medical benefits, while being connected to George Soros, the Pratzker family, and Steve Wozniak’s Esselin associations. - The promotion of psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, MDMA) is presented as a strategic tool used by corporate interests to reframe social norms and to push regulatory changes, with the implication that Rogan gave platform to MAPS-related talking points after Rogan started working with MAPS affiliates. The Esselin Institute and related mind-war concepts: - The Esselin Institute (Big Sur) is described as a key locus for the development of thought-architecture, social engineering, and mind-war concepts. Founders Michael Murphy and Dick Pierce are cited, with links to Aldous Huxley, Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Terrence McKenna, Rick Doblin, and Robert Anton Wilson as figures associated with the institute. - The presenter argues that Esselin served as a Troika-like hub bridging the Soviet influence with Western technologists, including alleged track-two diplomacy and exchanges between Soviet cosmonauts and American scientists, which supposedly seeded “mind war” and information-warfare concepts later manifested in contemporary media and technology ecosystems. - The claim is that many Rogan-circle figures, including Joe Rogan, Tim Berners, and Bruce Damer, share a lineage of influence traced back to Esselin’s “mind-war” research and its intersection with Pentagon and intelligence communities. The presenter closes by asserting that Rogan’s operations, including production via Jamie (Rogan’s producer), are part of a broader intelligence-cum-corporate project. The podcast is framed as an operation rather than purely organic content, with a wide network of actors—tech billionaires, investment groups, secret intelligence connections, and think tanks—working in concert to push a centralized agenda: a Brave New World with centralized control, a universal basic income, mass privatization of medicine and space, and a new social order steered by a set of interconnected elites. The overall aim of the presentation is to reveal and emphasize these interlocking sponsorships, corporate ties, and ideological threads as the backbone of Rogan’s influence, arguing that what appears as spontaneity on Rogan’s platform is, in fact, orchestrated through a network of corporate, political, and intelligence-connected actors and ideas.

Christy accesses the server room and introduces Brian, a new forensics expert. She shows him the server logs and points out the deletion of certain logs. They discuss the importance of investigating further and mention the presence of other individuals. The video ends with a mention of someone named Matt.

The clip centers on Skyler, a man seen in multiple interviews right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters highlight that Skyler appeared in about four online interviews, and he’s pictured with sunglasses on top of his head behind Charlie’s head. They note that the day Charlie Kirk was shot, Skyler was front row to witness it, and in the interviews he never claims to be press or someone important, yet he sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial. They question how this is possible and point to oddities in his interviews. In one sequence, Skyler is described as being only about 10 to 15 feet away when it happened, with security to his left and nothing else in front of him—“Close as he could.” They show Skyler and Charlie’s bodyguard moving to a different area once Charlie arrives and questions begin. Skyler is described as front row and center, with the bodyguard directly in front of Charlie and Skyler off to the side with sunglasses on his head. The footage is contrasted with his Facebook activity, which the speakers examine afterward. They state that at the memorial service Skyler was “sitting on the Main Floor” with a floor pass for a press conference, seated literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They contrast this with Skyler’s Facebook page, noting that he has “two point, I think, k followings,” and that from 2018 to 02/2025 there are “maybe seven posts and like 10 pictures.” The presenters remark that there is little material on his page, suggesting a discrepancy between his apparent access and his online footprint. Further, the speakers recount Skyler’s account of entering the stadium. He says, “There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. Yeah. They’re definitely protecting this place,” and adds that there had been “an overflow,” with people waiting since 05:30 in the morning. Yet Skyler ends up with a floor pass and sits just a few rows back on the Main Floor with a badge that says media, prompting the question: “How?” They describe how another person explained the process of passing through multiple layers to obtain a media badge and access the floor. The discussion turns speculative: Skyler “was handpicked to do all these interviews,” to have “front row” seating, and to be present at key moments. The dialogue then shifts to a series of unusual videos by Skyler, described as “bizarre.” One clip contains a speaker describing an “indecision night” where they say, “I photoshopped in my mind the blood away,” “I rewound the tape,” and “the shooter… goes down the stairs,” with continued vivid, fantastical editing of the event.

The speaker reviewed server logs and identified "Brian." The speaker found a database in the next vendor and new forensics. Christy is mentioned in connection to a server. The speaker shows access and a deletion on the log from the database. A previous tweet shows Christy letting Brian into the server. The speaker repeats "Here he is" multiple times. The speaker mentions another law proposal and altering.

"We barrel headlong into a permanent surveillance state in The United States." "Days before that event, Israel reportedly signed a $4,000,000 contract with a California firm called Show Faith by Works." "Now according to new reporting by investigative journalist Brian Farrance, that same company was behind what they described as the largest Christian geofencing campaign in US history." "After the memorial, even Turning Point's Andrew Colvitt openly admitted this on the Jesse Waters show that their tech partners had tracked more than 270,000 phones in and around the stadium." "Break a little bit of news on your program, Jesse. Our partners that do sort of geotagging with devices, they told us that they tracked over 277,000 devices in the vicinity of State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona. 277,000." "these people consent to that." "Just so you understand, people who came to the event to mourn Charlie Kirk were digitally tagged under the label of outreach." "Reach out to these people afterwards." "And at the same time, reports suggest that Charlie had rejected an enormous financial offer connected to foreign interests, sparking internal turmoil at Turning Points USA."

The speaker reviewed server logs and identified "Brian." The speaker found forensics in a database. The speaker shows access and a deletion on the log from the database. The speaker claims Christy previously tweeted about letting Brian into the server. The speaker repeats "Here he is" multiple times. The speaker mentions a law proposal.

The speakers recount the moments surrounding Charlie Kirk being shot and highlight the behavior of Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kelley’s chief of staff. The account begins with a father describing his son’s roles: Justin is the chief financial officer, and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls the instant Charlie was shot: “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing at the time, with blood all over him. Speaker 1 focuses on Mikey’s actions during the incident. He notes that Mikey is still there, phone in hand, texting, talking, then putting the phone away. He points to the person Charlie is arguing with, Hunter Kozak, and emphasizes what the video shows about Mikey: he seems to see Charlie get hit and “simply walks away.” Mikey later reappears on the other side of the tent, not running but walking. The account questions whether Mikey might be on the phone, though it isn’t certain. Security guards are described as doing their part, while Mikey is shown “walking, like getting far away from everything.” The narrative suggests Mikey turned his back on the incident after it happened. Speaker 2 names Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend, describing what he did or did not do during the morning. The speaker asserts that Mikey “spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side filming everything,” but then “abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed.” The key questions posed are whether Charlie was actually dead, whether he needed help, and whether Mikey rushed to aid him or instead got his camera out. The speaker concludes that, according to the account, “Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” In summary, the described sequence presents Mikey McCoy as being present with Charlie prior to the shooting, then engaging in texting and moving away, appearing on the far side of the tent, and ultimately turning his back on Charlie after the incident, with the claim that he abandoned him as Charlie passed. The recounting is reinforced by a second speaker who reiterates that Mikey did not assist Charlie and appeared to prioritize other actions over Charlie’s welfare.

The discussion highlights inconsistencies at Amy’s scene: she was right-handed, but the gun was found on the left side of her body. Confidential sources spoke on the record to other journalists, noting heavy intelligence involvement on the scene. No coroner report or autopsy has been released yet, though it’s expected to be explored during the forthcoming investigation. As Amy’s story gained public attention, Daily Mail headlines were described as misleading, contributing to a broader media spread that included CNN and Fox News. A set of texts from a man named Sam, which have since been erased, are introduced for context. One post from Sam presenting Amy’s messages describes death threats Amy had received daily for her recent work, claiming surveillance after she “crossed some line” with her independently developed theory. She mentions leaving a voice note on a hacked phone about “super, heedy shit” she had figured out, followed by ongoing “daily death threats.” She asserts she did not kill herself, telling people close to her over the past few days that it is “simply impossible to take them all out,” and asks what can be told about Sam and these texts, noting there are more. Speaker 0 explains that Sam Reid was Amy’s business partner in the Geometric Energy Corporation (GEC), formed with Sam and Chantel, and that Sam was a very close friend of Amy. The texts indicate Amy was updating him about what happened to him as well; reading the streams reveals Sam and Amy were both affected. Sam is portrayed as someone Amy relied on and trusted as a best friend, with whom she shared substantial history and company involvement. Following this, it’s noted that Sam removed the tweets, leading to questions about possible consequences for him. The speaker reflects on misleading headlines, citing an example that stated, “eleventh scientists found dead,” which mischaracterizes the situation since Amy died four years ago. The speaker refrains from speculating on Sam Reid’s motives for deleting the texts, stating they do not know him personally and that it wouldn’t be fair to speculate about his motivations. The core point remains: Sam deleted the texts, which is considered noteworthy. Fact of the matter remains that Sam erased the texts, and this action is highlighted within the discussion.

The narrator describes posting TikToks about Erica Kirk on January 22 and January 27, with both videos performing very well. A day after the second TikTok, they received an email from a PR team allegedly reaching out on behalf of Aranos, claiming to be connected to Younique. The PR team offered “the deal of a lifetime” to help the narrator start their own makeup line with Younique, covering all upfront costs. The narrator then states they looked into Younique and notes that the owner is Derek Maxfield. They then refer back to September 10, describing an incident in which, one hour after a Charlie Kirk incident, a private jet with tail number N888KG took off from Provo, Utah. The plane allegedly turned off its transmitter in flight. The incident received a lot of attention quickly, and the owner of the plane made a statement. The narrator connects this Derek Maxfield to the makeup company by noting that Derek Maxfield is the owner who spoke after the private jet incident, and claims that someone allegedly connected to the makeup company reached out to them one day after they posted the TikTok about Erica Kirk. They acknowledge that this could be a coincidence and present it as their opinion. The narrator closes by asking the audience what they think, describing the connection as “weird.” The overall sequence ties the TikTok engagement about Erica Kirk to a subsequent outreach from a makeup company associated with Derek Maxfield, alongside the prior public incident involving the same individual.

The speaker explains that investigating a matter involving someone they know is challenging, noting small discrepancies that might not alarm the general public. A key early clue was Terrell Farnsworth’s presence at the event, despite his usual role at the top of the company handling large events (SaaS, AmFest) and not typically attending college campus events. Terrell claimed they were trying something new that day, but the approach seemed so new that it lasted only until the next event after Charlie died, at which point Terrell was not present again. Terrell did, however, secure the SD cards at that event. The speaker emphasizes that this is a detail that would not necessarily be seen as concrete by the broader audience, but it stood out as an anomaly to them.

This video shows body cam footage from the Trump rally shooting at Butler Farm Show. Someone is seen leaving the water tower area on a bike or scooter while police point weapons at the roof. The person was not stopped, raising questions about their identity. The motorcycle in the parking lot is still there, ruling out a connection. It's crucial to identify this individual. Thank you. Goodbye.

The transcript presents a video analysis centered on Frank Turek during an event with Charlie, focusing on whether Frank was FaceTiming his wife and son/daughter-in-law or viewing drone surveillance footage. The speaker asserts that Frank, initially seen on the left of Charlie and later to Charlie’s right, was FaceTiming someone but then shifted to viewing surveillance footage, likely from a drone, rather than the FaceTime call. Key claims and sequence: - The narrator describes Frank standing to Charlie’s right behind him, holding a phone, and initially FaceTiming someone while Charlie sits and asks questions. The claim is that Frank’s FaceTime feed shows a woman and a picture-in-picture frame, suggesting FaceTiming with someone. - The speaker contends that the phone Frank is using for the FaceTime appears different from the phone he uses to view drone footage, noting discrepancies in phone appearance (dimensions, front/back features, button color). - The analysis shifts to allegedly showing that Frank’s phone screen is displaying drone surveillance footage rather than faces. The speaker points to frames where objects on the screen resemble a car, trees, a building with a spire or fountain, and a golf cart, arguing these are not faces or reflections. - A key part of the argument is a claimed cross-angle discrepancy: Dan Flood’s tattooed arm appears on Frank’s phone screen at angles inconsistent with the real arm’s orientation, implying the feed is from a different camera angle than Frank’s own position. The speaker argues this mismatch indicates a surveillance feed, possibly from a drone, rather than a direct FaceTime view of a person. - The footage sequence allegedly shows movement synchronized between Frank’s phone screen and what’s happening off-screen, including observations of an arm, two legs, and later a moment that might depict Charlie tipping over after an incident. - The presenter points out a potential visual link between a tire/hubcap and a vehicle seen earlier on Frank’s phone, inviting viewers to compare frames and decide if they are the same. - The speaker invites the audience to review the footage themselves, proposes that Frank was not FaceTiming anyone, and suggests that he may have switched to drone footage. They emphasize that this is a theory that should be investigated and encourage downloading the footage to form a conclusion. - Acknowledgment is given to Indi Rose of the Let Me Stop You There podcast, whose analysis influenced the video, with an invitation to followers to review her work and compare viewpoints. Overall, the transcript details a contested interpretation: whether Frank used FaceTime as claimed or was viewing drone surveillance footage, with emphasis on frame-by-frame inconsistencies, angle mismatches, and the appearance of drone imagery on Frank’s screen, culminating in a call for independent review of the footage.

I was about 10 feet to Charlie's left when it happened. It was one of those moments that will crystallize in your mind forever. You hear the pop, and it’s not completely clear what it is at first. I looked to my right and immediately saw what had happened. It was just one shot. The security got him immediately, got him into the car immediately, and then out again. They could not have done their job any better. Then, what do we do? I sent a message on Telegram to Turning Point, telling them to lockdown. I imagined they’d already seen it, but I said, lockdown Turning Point. I called my mom and said, I can’t say more, but mom, Charlie got shot. I love you. I have to go. Then I met with other team members, and we got to the hospital within about twenty-five minutes, and the rest of the day unfolded from there. Staff decided to address this head on because there’s so much intrigue, and I’m going to do a generous thing. The intrigue is because people care about Charlie. Blake, you were there and you interacted with Mikey. You left the scene and then reconnected with Mikey. So, explain what the video is. The video is by someone who attacked Mikey, Charlie’s friend, Charlie’s chief of staff, a guy we’ve seen on the show the last few weeks. They claim, based on a few seconds of clips, that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. This is an extremely disgusting attack. I was there when it happened and I was next to Mikey when it happened. When the shooting occurs, we both hear a loud crack and turn to see Charlie who has been shot. We both realize there is a shooter on the scene. We hear the crack and don’t know if it came from far or close, or if a mass shooting is unfolding. My reaction, and Mikey’s, was to get out of there before we were both shot. That is not us abandoning Charlie. Charlie had a security team; they leapt into action and got Charlie out, which was their job. My job was not to be a hero or get in the way. I remember running past the SUV we came in on, thinking, should I get in that car? Then I thought that would be stupid, and I kept going. I was ahead of Mikey as we left. We got out and ran for more than fifteen or twenty seconds. I paused, looked around, and saw Mikey. I will never forget what I saw. Mikey is usually bubbly and happy, but he was profoundly freaked out. His lip was quivering, something I’d never seen from him. He said, I think he literally said, he needs to call Erica, then he calls Erica. He also calls his dad, Rob McCoy, and says, Dad, someone shot Charlie. You need to call all of your pastor friends. We then gathered to direct actions: to get to the hospital and to relay information to Erica. After the call, Mikey regained control and stepped up, directing a battle-like flow: get to the hospital, wait here, and get information to Erica.

The conversation opens with an informal setup, suggesting viewers are engaging with an Instagram-facing moment and the team is preparing to welcome a guest. The atmosphere is casual and enthusiastic as the group shifts to introducing a notable participant and a sponsor. First, Charlie Kirk is introduced as someone the crowd will welcome with emphasis on the excitement in the room, signaling the event’s focus on hearing from him. The dialogue then shifts to the sponsor portion of the event, featuring Y Refi as a partner connected to Turning Point. Lane, representing Y Refi, steps forward to greet the audience and express pleasure at being there. Lane acknowledges the Wolverines audience, conveying appreciation for their energy and engagement. The sponsor’s role is framed as supportive of the event and the broader mission associated with Turning Point, highlighting a collaborative partnership that will extend beyond the current gathering. Lane details the sponsor’s plans for engagement, noting that Y Refi will participate in a tour linked to Charlie Kirk, describing the tour as a “ton of fun” and “super exciting.” This sets expectations for upcoming appearances and activities surrounding Charlie Kirk, signaling ongoing visibility and involvement with the speaker and the audience. A practical question is posed to the attendees: how many in the audience have student loans? The moderator repeats the question, seeking a show of hands, and the crowd responds with a chorus of acknowledgment. Lane adds a lighthearted nod to the political climate by thanking Biden, which cues a moment of audience interaction and shared sentiment. Lane frames Y Refi’s services in the context of student debt distress, stating clearly that the company’s goal is to assist people who find themselves in distress with student loan debt. The speaker expresses optimism that attendees may never need the services, but makes it explicit that if distress arises, they should call Y Refi. This portion underscores the sponsor’s value proposition and readiness to support individuals facing financial burdens related to student loans. Despite this emphasis on the sponsor’s offerings, the overarching purpose of the event remains to bring Charlie Kirk to the stage. Lane explicitly conveys that the sponsor’s presence is part of a larger program linked to Charlie Kirk’s appearance, reinforcing the anticipation for the main speaker. The segment concludes with a crowd-reaction moment, as Speaker 0 remarks that Utah has a large audience, closing the sponsor portion with a note of excitement and local energy for Charlie Kirk’s forthcoming appearance.

Speaker 0 breaks a little bit of news on your program, Jesse. He reports that 'our partners that do sort of geotagging with devices, they told us that they tracked over 277,000 devices in the vicinity of State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.' He adds, 'Wow. 277,000. That's unbelievable.' He concludes, 'Gives you an idea of the scale of humanity out there.' These statements illustrate the large number of devices detected near a major venue, highlighting the scale of activity in the area during events. The segment emphasizes the reach of geotagging data and public disclosure in reporting near real-time device counts. It conveys a perspective on how many devices can be tracked in a single location.

Speaker 1 explains that a family member will unlock an entire family tree that upends Erica Kirk’s image and potentially exposes her connection to a network of financial fraud, casino gambling, and foreign influence. Everything told is verifiable and in the public domain. Erica Kirk is described as, at the time, with her roommate Nicole Rothstein. Speaker 1 recounts that Nicole Rothstein is Erica Kirk’s cousin. Nicole responded to a clip featuring Erica Kirk about Shabbat, saying, “as her cousin who is fully Jewish, half of her family is Jewish. While she herself is a Christian, she has celebrated many Jewish holidays with our side of the family and highly respects the Jewish religion.” The speaker notes Nicole Rothstein’s account may no longer be available. Nicole’s father is Alan Rothstein, who appears in an Instagram post sitting next to her, with Erica Kirk writing about “God’s strategic planning” and being blessed to have “uncle Allen” in her life. The speaker then identifies Alan P. Rothstein in an SEC document, confirming he is the same person. The SEC document describes him as a member of the board of directors of Innumerall and notes he also owned Shazoom LLC. The speaker notes that from 2002 through 2007, Alan Rothstein was the co-founder and chairman of NanoDynamics Incorporated. Further digging suggests Alan Rothstein, Erica’s uncle, may have been involved in questionable activities. For NanoDynamics, the suit in bankruptcy court is mentioned, with the implication that a trustee may allege improper withdrawal of funds by a director or founder before collapse. Innumerall is described as a penny stock trading on the OTC markets before bankruptcy. Shazoom LLC is described as a business funding company with little footprint—no major client reviews, no press releases of funded deals, and no industry presence. The speaker suggests this may indicate a shell company used to move money rather than conduct commerce. The transcript states that the Rothsteins are a famous crime family, with Erica Kirk positioned at the center as the new CEO of Turning Point. The speaker asks again who Erica Kirk is—whether she is an innocent widow thrust into the limelight by the death of her husband, or if there is more to the story. A final breadcrumb invites viewers to count the stars on the American flag in the AmericaFest 2025 logo.