TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The video discusses the body cam footage from the Trump assassination attempt and raises questions about the actions of the police officers involved. The speaker analyzes the timeline of events and highlights inconsistencies and odd behavior. They question why it took a patrol officer less than two minutes to locate the suspect on the roof while other law enforcement officers seemed unaware. The speaker also wonders why the officer did not yell or communicate more effectively during the incident. The video concludes with a list of unresolved questions and a request for more information. (149 words)

Neighbor Billy Toma filmed a suspicious van being towed from the scene near his home. The van was parked on his street during a rally, and he noticed it was out of place. Police surrounded the van, which had an Arizona license plate. Despite the tense situation, Billy and his son were not approached by the police. This witness account adds to the investigation of the incident involving the former president being shot.

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.”

There is speculation about Maxwell Yurek from Arizona being connected to a white van at the Trump rally. The speaker visited Yurek's residence and questioned a family member, who denied knowing anything about Yurek's whereabouts or the van. The family member refused to provide any information and ended the conversation abruptly.

George Webb's Substack part 7 details the "secret life of Thomas Crooks' American Antifa" and presents evidence regarding a potential assassination plot against Trump. FBI documents allegedly show Marchant, a Pakistani man with ties to Iran, Libya, and Syria, offered $1,000,000 to kill Trump, outlining the crowd, podium, and a "long shot." Despite Marchant's arrest the day before the rally, authorities downplayed the connection. Webb urges congressional investigators to subpoena Beaver County deputies who abandoned their posts and question Cheadle about communicating the $1,000,000 bounty to counter-sniper teams. He claims a drawing of the assassination plot was made in a New York hotel room, including a plan to get someone close with a pistol. Webb also mentions a gunpowder plot involving a speaker bag. Webb asserts that keeping Trump alive is the key to winning the election, as he believes no one will vote for Harris and Walls.

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

There is speculation about Maxwell Yurek from Arizona being linked to a white van at a Trump rally. The van had Arizona plates and is connected to Yurek Armoury Explosives. A conversation with a person at Yurek's residence did not provide any clear answers about his whereabouts or involvement. The individual denied knowing Maxwell and refused to discuss further details. The video ends with unanswered questions and suspicions about Yurek's potential role in the events.

George Webb discusses Mr. West Rowley, who lived in Sandpoint, Idaho for six months with roommate TJ Franks. According to Webb, Rowley did not own a gun during that time. Webb claims that after leaving Sandpoint, Rowley became a "brony boy," wearing women's makeup and becoming effeminate. Webb questions whether this transition explains how Rowley held down 300 federal agents, Blackhawk helicopters, drones, and dogs. He contrasts this with the sheriff's claim of rapid rifle fire, suggesting other individuals were involved. Webb notes the lack of forensic evidence linking Rowley to the crime, such as handprint, cheek, powder, or resin tests, and the failure to trace the gun's serial number. Webb suggests Rowley may have been framed. He questions the sheriff's account of being pinned down under heavy fire, stating that a shotgun doesn't sound like rifle fire. Webb calls for autopsies and standard investigative follow-up, such as resin tests.

It's been a month since the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, PA. Records show the shooter's extensive training at a local gun club frequented by law enforcement. Body cam footage reveals missed opportunities to prevent the shooting. Locals question the Secret Service's security failures and lack of communication with county SWAT. Grassley criticizes the Secret Service for not meeting with SWAT a month after the incident.

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.

Where is the body of Thomas Matthew Crooks? A report reveals that the FBI quickly cleaned up biological evidence from the crime scene after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump on July 13, 2024. Congressman Clay Higgins, who investigated the scene, found alarming actions by the FBI that raise questions about the investigation's integrity. Notably, the FBI released Crooks' body for cremation just ten days after the incident, without informing local authorities, hindering the verification of autopsy reports. Higgins expressed concerns that without examining the body, the accuracy of the reports cannot be confirmed. This situation, along with the rapid cleanup of evidence, suggests possible obstruction of justice in the investigation.

"Candice is now saying that she believes that there is most likely some Ukrainian ties, some intelligence agencies that are involved in this assassination." "it's a military operation." "None of this shit is adding up, and it fucking stinks, guys." "a person going by the name Robbie Hild, who was allegedly from Washington." "No one is saying they went to school with him." "stronger than a theory and more of a hunch that this was a military operation, and people that executed this are actually from overseas." "They have a direct pipeline from Russia to America." "What we're talking about are terrorist cells." "Charlie was on a hit list. I also was on the hit list. Tucker was on the hit list." "release the gosh damn CCTV footage." "What the hell are you guys doing covering this shit up?"

Candace Owens opens by acknowledging tech challenges and explains she wants to recap the Fort Huachuca situation to counter a widespread misinformation campaign. She shares a timeline she drafted to illustrate how rapidly events unfolded after receiving Mitch’s story about a Fort Huachuca meeting. She describes her decision-making process from the night of the eighth through subsequent days as she sought to verify Mitch’s claims, including face-to-face vetting with government/military contacts and cross-checking with people who could corroborate or challenge Mitch’s account. Key narrative points Candace presents: - Mitch’s account centers on a September 8-9 sequence at Fort Huachuca involving top brass and a likely on-the-brink mission. Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk at the Candlewood Inn and Suites on September 8 and later describes a high-level meeting on September 9, with 12-13 people she described as top brass. He initially identified a person who resembled Cabot Phillips as being present and later discussed Brian Harpole’s possible presence at the base in that context. - Candace states she asked for basic vetting from a trusted government/military contact and later confirmed certain details, including that Brian Harpole’s alibi was not fully established for the morning of September 9. She notes that Erica provided flight information for Harpole, which Candace used to test Mitch’s timeline but found it did not definitively confirm an alibi for the morning. - With Mitch’s consent, Candace had Mitch on her show to present his metadata (IDs, passports) and his broader story; she maintains Mitch is a Green Beret and that “everything he said was substantially true,” though she concedes uncertainty about whether Harpole actually attended the meeting. - Candace recounts an escalation in scrutiny: Alex Jones and others amplified Mitch’s story; Barry Weiss’s “stop, stop” clip and social media attention followed. She says Ian Carroll warned of an impending lawsuit by Harpole and that someone sought to derail the discussion with manipulated allegations (e.g., stolen valor accusations). She explains she received a cease-and-desist suggestion but pressed on with vetting Mitch’s claims. - She notes that during the back-and-forth, Erica Kirk provided Harpole’s flights but not a complete, verifiable alibi for September 9 or a full record of activities. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and Erica’s team offered an alibi (she was making dinner for Charlie Kirk); Candace sought metadata to confirm whether the text messages with Charlie Kirk occurred, but those data were still pending. - Candace emphasizes that she did not claim Erica was at Fort Huachuca on September 9; she states Mitch specifically claimed Harpole was present, and she focused on verifying that. She mentions Cabot Phillips’s possible presence was investigated and found Phillips was on vacation during the relevant dates, complicating Mitch’s claims about Cabot being the person he saw. - She discusses the broader context: the investigation has drawn in other players (Paramount Tactical, Valhalla, exes, and Mitch’s family) who offered or alleged alibis or information. She asserts she has sought to publish verifiable alibis when provided and to debunk or corroborate Mitch’s story with available evidence. She asserts she would publish Erica’s alibi if provided with receipts or a verifiable text chain showing Charlie Kirk’s communications. - Candace acknowledges the debate about whether the Fort Huachuca discussion constitutes an assassination planning meeting, clarifying that she has not claimed Erica Kirk attended that meeting, only that Mitch said someone resembling Cabot Phillips and Brian Harpole were involved in the broader Fort Huachuca-related events. She notes that Harrisons and others push back on the inference that the Fort Huachuca episode proves an assassination plot, and she respects a range of views on the matter. - She reports ongoing efforts: contacting Brian Harpole multiple times for a direct alibi for the morning of September 9; continuing to request Erica’s complete alibi and metadata; engaging Turning Point USA for clarifications; and aiming to verify or refute Mitch’s account through primary sources (base personnel, flight logs, official records). - Candace highlights the general sentiment from viewers and participants: there is a strong urge for transparency and credible evidence, and a belief that those connected to TPUSA and its affiliates should provide clear, simple alibis if they care about debunking or clarifying Mitch’s claims. Several participants stress that the investigation should stay focused on Charlie Kirk’s murder and whether Mitch’s Fort Huachuca timeline intersects with that event, rather than spiraling into personal allegations or MeToo-era rumors. Input from participants and their positions: - Harrison Faulkner: Questions the significance of the Fort Huachuca meeting, asking what the actual claim is and what proof would entail. He noted that even if Mitch’s story has proof, the core question remains: what is the conclusion or inference about Charlie Kirk’s murder? - Morgan Ariel: Affirms she remains on board with the investigation while expressing reservations about Mitch’s credibility. Emphasizes the need to assess Mitch’s claims against credible evidence and to avoid conflating personal accusations with the core investigative goals. - Myron: Supports Candace’s approach, endorsing investigative rigor, considering that Mitch may have been misrepresented by informants, and highlighting the importance of corroborating facts with base personnel and official records. - Ian Carroll: Recaps interactions with “Paramount Tactical” and others warning of potential pushback or attempts to manipulate Mitch’s narrative. Notes Ben Shapiro/Andrew Colbert’s involvement and expresses concern about behind-the-scenes pressure. He emphasizes seeking a straightforward alibi from Harpole and Erica. - Isabella: Asks about Morgan’s involvement and notes the potential for coordinated messaging around Mitch’s case. Seeks clarity on positions of exes and allies in the narrative. - Diligent Denizen: Urges rigorous curiosity and accountability, questioning how to prove negatives and seeking direct, verifiable evidence (e.g., alibi confirmations, flight logs, phone/metadatum trails). Argues for open, transparent sourcing and discourages character attacks without solid receipts. - Suleiman: Asks about the feasibility of proving negative alibis and how to confirm absence from a location when no direct evidence exists; underscores the need for a robust evidentiary trail. - Mel: Brings perspective from personal military life, pressing for straightforward evidence (alibis) and criticizing what she perceives as “half-hearted debunkings” or distractions (e.g., focus on exes) that divert from the Charlie Kirk case. - Ryan and other attendees: Echo appreciation for Candace’s investigative work, urge Turning Point to provide clear accountability, and emphasize public trust concerns regarding TPUSA’s handling of the Fort Huachuca matter and Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation. Candace closes by acknowledging the ongoing, crowdsourced nature of the investigation, the need for receipts and verifiable alibis, and her commitment to continuing to pursue the truth. She reiterates that if Erica or Cabot provide solid alibis with verifiable evidence, she will publish them; if Mitch’s account is proven inaccurate, she will acknowledge it and adjust accordingly. She teases additional explosive reporting on related topics, including Tyler Robinson, and states she will be back with more on this case.

The speaker discusses the FBI's "failed investigation" of the January 6th pipe bomb, alleging the FBI has no leads or suspects, has lost information and evidence, and that the Secret Service deleted all texts from January 6th. The speaker claims Steve D'Antuono said cell phone data that could have been used to find the bomber was corrupted. The speaker states that the FBI does not have video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The speaker asks if confidential human sources were involved in the pipe bomb incident. The other speaker responded they would have to refresh themselves on the information gathered to date. The speaker suggests getting the information public before the election.

Service is under scrutiny regarding the Trump assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Doctor Chris Martinson discusses inconsistencies in the narrative, particularly surrounding the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, and the circumstances of the shooting. He highlights the unusual proximity of the shooter to Trump, questioning how a 20-year-old with limited connections could execute such a plan. Martinson analyzed raw audio from the incident, noting distinct differences in gunfire sounds, suggesting multiple shooters. Eyewitness accounts indicate emergency service personnel were present but did not act. The investigation raises further questions about the security detail and the actions of those involved. Martinson urges anyone with relevant footage to share it, emphasizing the importance of citizen journalism in uncovering the truth.

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?"

The Butler County Sheriff's Department stated that responding officers did not have body cam footage. The department is responding to the rest of the request. The speaker notes that a key law enforcement agency allegedly does not have body cam video of the "Trump assassin."

Stephen Gardner and Jack Buzovic argue that the smoking gun will be the geolocation data next to the DNA evidence on the rifle. They say, essentially, you steal my car and commit a crime, you’ll likely find my DNA in the vehicle and on the trigger, so now we’re going to trust some expert to provide magical geolocation data. They question how Tyler Robinson could be involved and suggest this should be a single, big government conspiracy if he didn’t actually take the shot. They insist CCTV video would show Tyler Robinson moving through the parking garage, onto the roof, and through various locations, and that the investigation should not avoid showing the video. They ask how a juror would be convinced without video footage when there are twenty different videos, and whether geolocation data could hurt the case when a murder has been committed. They complain about having to trust another expert and mention past high-profile investigations. They demand to see CCTV video showing Tyler Robinson walking across the campus, onto the roof, getting into his car, running through neighborhoods, because all that has been presented is “slop.” Ryan Mehta introduces this segment as a critique of the presented evidence. Speaker 1 (questioning the forensic approach) asks about cell phone tracking and geofencing data, noting that the same method was used in January 6 to determine who was on the steps or on the lawn. They ask what was found regarding that data in this case. Speaker 2 responds that the case will reveal with great clarity whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area and whether the texts that many have questions about were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg, and whether Lance Twigg was in Southern Utah or in Orem. The main point is that people are asking how he could have known given the terrain and that Google Maps could not have allowed planning of the murder. They say the data will show paths, including whether he went the day before or weeks before, and will track all of that. Joseph Scott Morgan told them they would be able to track him from 8 Hundredth Street down through the tunnel, up around the Losey Building, up the stairs, onto the roof, from the roof out to the roofline, take the shot, jump off the Losey Building, run into the woods. They mention conspiracy videos claiming he was spotted at a cafe on security footage; some claimed the cafe owner saw him on security cameras, while others claimed it wasn’t consistent with a murderer’s behavior. They argue the FBI tracked him to that location, and that the next morning at 07:15 AM, a Cedar City Maverick gas station records his credit card use and follows his phone, his movements home, visits to Lance, and visits to his parents, with all phone calls, texts, and other data available. The forensic expert, Joseph Scott Morgan, asserts that next to the gun, the cell phone data will be the thing that ties Tyler Robinson directly to the person on that building, and there is doubt among some about trusting the FBI. The discussion ends with the assertion that geotracking will provide the crucial link.

- The footage that we saw of the front of Charlie's neck, was that an entry or an exit wound? - Why wasn't there any blood spatter on the white banner behind Charlie? - Why wasn't this handled like a regular crime scene? - Why was the security taking down a camera that was posted up behind Charlie during the shooting? Who took that camera down? Where is that footage? - For multiple decoys in this incident, it almost seems like there's a patsy because you remember that older guy who was taken into custody. His name turned out to be George Zinn. - Netanyahu is acting incredibly suspicious. - He somehow tweeted at the exact same time as Donald Trump to announce that Charlie Kirk was killed. - He was home in his casket within forty eight hours of being killed. Everything was very swift. - What does the hospital have to say? What do the surgeons at the hospital have to say?

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.

Two speakers discuss a tip about video footage of Tyler Robinson. The informant says "I've been trying to get in touch with Candace Owens" and that "the FBI came to my job... and informed me that his phone pinged in this parking lot." They say the FBI was "going in her shopping center... to retrieve video footage" and shows "Tyler Robinson's car pulling into the parking lot" with a "white SUV" nearby. They claim "This video specifically doesn't make sense" because a person who just committed an assassination would not linger in a parking lot. They reference "surveillance footage" from the FBI in Utah that shows Tyler jumping off the roof and argue the rifle was "reassembled again." They cite Candace Owens' insider saying Tyler never admitted to being on UVU campus and question why law enforcement has not released the full footage, suggesting possible involvement of others.

The speaker discusses Maxwell Yurek from Arizona, claiming a white GMC van with Arizona plates towed from the Trump rally in Pennsylvania after a shooting is tied to him. The speaker urges viewers to Google Yurek's name, noting information is being scrubbed. The speaker claims Yurek is connected to Yurek Armoury Explosives in East Mesa, Arizona, and that Google searches for the company reveal a residence. The speaker and his brother drove to the residence and spoke to a woman there. The speaker presents a video of the encounter, where he asks the woman if Max is present. The woman initially claims not to know any Max Yurek or Yerling. The speaker identifies himself as Tyson Draper, a missing person investigator, and asks about a missing person report for Yurek. The woman denies knowledge of this. She acknowledges being part of the family but claims to have "no say on anything" and denies knowledge of the van.

- 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?'

George Webb discusses the threat posed by Wayland, a sniper recruiter linked to the Clinton Foundation. He also mentions the Pakistani network, specifically the involvement of Pakistan in funding Antifa and supplying snipers. Webb highlights the shift towards focusing on the older sniper network associated with Hillary Clinton, in addition to the Democratic network led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Both groups are seen as potential threats to President Trump. Webb emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation to uncover the truth.

George Webb discusses an Azov connection, citing “Azov kill squads in September 13” and “Azov Family Robinson on the thirteenth,” with Frau Hodl providing research and noting “millions of viewers” validation. He recalls Kent State and says “Curtis LeMay put together with Reeve Whitson, a team, to say, let's drug the whole anti war movement,” adding that “liquid sunshine LSD” was used to “stop” the movement. Webb states “they're creating teams of trans people like armed queers” and cites the “explosion yesterday at the Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA” as evidence of “low intensity warfare against people and free expression.” He claims “a two hour negotiation over the phone with the sheriff” and asserts “chain of custody” was broken, and that “text messages ... inadmissible in court” while insisting “the investigation was cleared from the very beginning.” He urges Cash Patel to come with “250 agents” and to “Create a timeline of gray Dodge Challenger,” questions TMZ, and concludes “The only way to get to the truth is bring the agents here.” “Reporting live live from Utah Valley University, George Webb.”