reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker explains that "somebody figured this out, it wasn't me" and notes that "somebody else shared this other guy's work without really giving him credit," adding "so I still don't know who's the guy who kinda figured this out and whoever it is is a hero." The material has been "shared with, you know, the office of DNI or whatever." To align everyone, they propose to watch "spyplanesaga.move" together with the audience "so that we're all kind of on the same page," describing "this is what I saw and I was like, what? What?" and that "Jason's gonna take us there in real time." The discovery is "Discovered a few days ago relating to a particular jet and what it was doing on September 10."

- The conversation opens with a claim that the Epstein affair is a smokescreen for something more sinister, implying high-level involvement or covert operations. - Allegations about Epstein's material include a set of videos: “sex video with a minor,” “twenty seven minute video called threesome,” “nineteen minute video called underage girl sex video,” and other listed clips. The speakers debate whether Epstein liked underage girls or used them for blackmail. - Victoria (Lady Victoria) states Epstein was “definitely connected to intelligence,” suggesting he could have been used by intelligence services to obtain or exchange information. - There is a claim that “two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey Epstein and Madame Ghislain Maxwell” near the Zoro Ranch, presented as a source-based assertion. - Discussion of Prince Andrew’s arrest: Victoria describes it as brutal and shocking, noting the king attended a London Fashion Week event during the arrest. She argues the palace seems infiltrated by anti-monarchists and criticizes the decision to strip Andrew of his titles as a potential destabilizing act. - David Kay Johnston is mentioned (via a journalist offered by the show), suggesting the arrest was a public warning to others implicated in the files. - The presenters discuss how the royal household, including King Charles, distanced itself and how media dynamics influence public perception. Victoria contends the palace’s communications head is a former Daily Mail staffer, implying media manipulation. - The discussion covers Epstein’s role as an envoy and possible involvement in sharing state secrets, including alleged emails about British aid to Afghanistan and other sensitive information. Victoria argues Andrew was not a formal diplomat but held an honorary position. - The guests examine an email chain alleging an Epstein plane landing at a British RAF base, debating whether private jets at RAF facilities require official approval and whether royal status adds a layer of protection or privilege. - They critique later media presentations of Epstein files, noting the FBI’s long redaction of names and the public’s tendency to draw sensational conclusions from redacted material. They acknowledge the complexity of distinguishing victims, redactions, and potential fabrications. - There is a debate about the credibility of victims’ accounts: some victims’ stories are asserted to be truthful, others to be exaggerated or manipulated by media. Victoria emphasizes that many victims are drug addicts and that some claims may be driven by sensationalism or manipulation. - The conversation touches the redaction and release of documents: Victoria argues that redactions create a misleading impression, while the other participant contends the FBI may be withholding information for security reasons. They note that public access to the files is incomplete and contested. - MK Ultra and CIA involvement are discussed as possible explanations for manipulation: Victoria claims that many of the girls might have memory distortions or implanted memories, suggesting MK Ultra-like programming. She links butterfly logos and certain psychedelics to MK Ultra and proposes that intelligence agencies could have used blackmail to influence political or diplomatic outcomes. - There is substantial debate about a blackmail operation: the other participant asserts Epstein ran a blackmail network, potentially with the lawyers acting as intermediaries and witnesses, while suggesting some victims were coerced or incentivized to participate in harmful activities. - The dialogue introduces the theory that intelligence agencies may have protected Epstein in order to exploit his access to sensitive information, using him as an asset for leverage or negotiated outcomes, possibly involving foreign leaders or critical geopolitical deals. Victoria suggests multiple countries (Saudi Arabia, Israel, the US) could be implicated, and hints at a broader “intelligence operation” aimed at destabilizing or discrediting powerful figures, including the royal family. - The participants discuss various photos and videos in Epstein-related files, including a contentious image involving Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre (Dufrey), and others. They debate whether the image is authentic or fake, and whether the subjects were underage, with Victoria arguing that the public redactions obscure the truth and that the image’s context is critical. - There is mention of a controversial claim that Ghislain Maxwell claims the photo is fake and a separate PR statement was never used due to inaccuracies. Victoria argues Maxwell would want to contest allegations through official channels. - The broader question of “who would be behind such a massive setup?” arises: the hosts consider intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad) as plausible executors, with some mention of MI6 and broader geopolitical actors. They debate whether Israel, the CIA, Mossad, and other parties could be coordinating a “monarchy takedown” or a larger anti-establishment campaign. - Toward the end, the dialogue returns to Epstein’s death: some guests argue Epstein was killed (or possibly swapped bodies) while others suggest he could still be alive. They reference autopsy discrepancies, ear comparisons, and alleged decoy bodies, expressing ongoing uncertainty about Epstein’s fate and whether the FBI/CIA/Mossad investigations are fully transparent. - The discussion closes with deference to ongoing investigations, the role of the media, and a sense that the Epstein dossier intersects with international power struggles, conspiracy theories, and contested narratives around intelligence agencies, royal figures, and victims’ accounts.

The speaker questions the conventional timeline and authorship behind Australia’s 19th-century “palace” churches and other grand structures, arguing that the narrative is inconsistent and improbable. Key points raised: - Christ Church Cathedral in Newcastle: The original 1817 Christ Church supposedly faced structural issues and was demolished in 1884 to make way for a new “palace church.” The foundation stone for this palace church is said to be laid in 1868, but construction allegedly did not begin for another 24 years, casting doubt on the sequence of events and suggesting possible deception or a slip in the narration. - Construction timeline skepticism: The speaker challenges the claim that the new church was completed between 1892 and 1902, calling it illogical that the old church would be demolished before the new one was ready. They imply the official timeline may be a fabrication. - Underground tunnels: The narration asserts the existence of a vast network of tunnels connecting multiple buildings in the area, with purported entrances near the James Fletcher Hospital, Meriwether High School, Stockton Bridge at the old military base, under houses, a fort, and Newcastle East Primary School. The tunnels are described as connecting to hospitals, schools, and churches, and as being sealed off or partially accessible through cracks or trapdoors. The speaker claims these tunnels have been long-hidden and are not acknowledged in mainstream accounts. - John Horbury Hunt and Edmund Blackett: The two figures are identified as the supposed designers of the Old World Palace Church and other major structures. The speaker highlights their lack of formal architectural or engineering training—Hunt reportedly trained as a carpenter in Boston, Blackett as a cloth merchant—with zero documented training in architecture. They note their prolific output (palaces, churches, schools) despite this supposed deficit and question how they could have conceived Gothic and complex designs in the 1800s without formal training. - Specific examples and contradictions: The speaker cites Saint Stephen’s Anglican Church in Newton, Sydney (completed 140-foot spire in three years without power tools), Saint Matthew’s Anglican Church in Albury (1857–1859, demolished by fire in 1991), and Saint John’s Bishopthorpe Glebe as projects attributed to Blackett and Hunt. They point to variations in construction duration, the absence of blueprints or workforce records, and fires that allegedly erased evidence, arguing the mainstream narrative lacks documentation. - Old world/theory of a lost civilization: The overall thesis is that many “old world” structures were built by a highly advanced civilization with proper training and extensive manpower, and that modern accounts misattribute these works to untrained individuals. The narrative frames these structures as originally built to last far beyond the times claimed by current histories, and asserts a pattern of demolitions in the mid-20th century to clear space for new development. - Call to action and tone: The presenter frames the video as part of a larger effort to dismantle the official narrative “piece by piece” and to uncover hidden connections, including underground networks and the true history of architectural mastery. The episode ends with a provocatively posed question: “Are you ready to go deeper?” and a commitment to continue examining these claims with the audience. - Miscellaneous commentary: The host promotes sponsors and Patreon supporters, including references to flat earth content, and thanks viewers for engagement. They also invoke broader themes of uncovering “the truth” behind architecture, tunnels, and demolished old-world mansions, and repeatedly emphasize that untrained individuals could not have produced such works, while suggesting the real history is hidden.

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

Aladdin and another participant discuss a string of controversial claims and conspiracy theories centered around Candace Owens and her husband, interwoven with personal updates and on-the-ground reporting plans. Aladdin introduces the topic by noting a disagreement with Zanny and invites Candace to continue, while also acknowledging support for a post in the nest. The conversation then moves to Candace Owens and her husband, described as a “MI5 asset” (a claim linked to his alleged background and funding). Speaker 1 identifies himself as a former intelligence officer who is currently in Ukraine, documenting the war to provide factual on-the-ground reporting and planning to visit Israel, Palestine, and Iraq to document events. He mentions a GoFundMe-style pin post on his profile for donations to his journey and stresses his aim to deliver factual reporting without spin. The discussion shifts to Candace Owens, whom Speaker 1 calls an “absolute fraud.” He cites “multiple indications back in 2022” related to Owens’s husband and references a firm he allegedly worked with, comparing it to a Wall Street-like operation in England. Specific firms mentioned include Parley or Glorify, and Avenger Capital Fund, suggesting that Owens’s husband is heavily funded by Jewish firms. When Owens speaks publicly, Speaker 1 argues, it appears to be designed to reveal a hidden network, prompting Aladdin to suggest peeling back layers of her narrative. The consensus among the participants is that Owens has become a prominent conspiracy disseminator who has shifted focus over time. The conversation traces Owens’s move from reporting about Charlies Kirk’s personal guard to broader conspiracies, expressing skepticism about the authenticity of texts Owens released between herself and Charlie Kirk. They describe those messages as not proving anything substantial about an assassination plot, though they debate their authenticity. The group notes Owens’s pattern of jumping between conspiracies without credible evidence, labeling some of her content as vile. Speaker 1 reveals that he knows Owens’s husband and alleges their marriage was arranged for clout, comparing the dynamic to a modern version of a high-profile “arranged marriage.” The discussion turns personal as Speaker 1, who grew up in Iraq, shares a harsh view toward Palestinians, calling them “parasites” and characterizing Palestinian behavior as spreading “cancer with their victimhood.” This remark is cited as part of the broader atmosphere of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding Owens and related narratives. Despite expressions of support for America, Speaker 1 emphasizes his Ukraine mission and reiterates his invitation for donations to fund his reporting. Toward the end, the group veers into light banter about a coin-toss game, humorously referencing heads for soap and tails for a lampshade, then moving through a quick aside about quarters and college games before returning to the ongoing discussion.

Good evening. Last night, we discussed the truth about John F. Kennedy Jr.'s disappearance. Evidence suggests he did communicate with the Martha's Vineyard control tower shortly before his crash, contradicting claims that he never called anyone. A bogus distress beacon was planted to mislead search efforts. The weather was not as poor as reported; visibility was decent, and he was on a glide path to land. The official narrative has been filled with lies and cover-ups. The investigation revealed that he was murdered, likely due to his potential political threat. The ancient conflict between secret societies and the church plays a significant role in this tragedy. We’re opening the lines for your thoughts and insights on this matter.

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.

Host: The discussion covers a range of new findings and questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s death and the surrounding investigations, focusing on footage, forensics, coded communications, and the involvement of powerful figures. JP: They claimed the prison cameras weren’t working, but footage shows at least one camera in Epstein’s area was recording. The cameras supposedly stopped the day Epstein was released back into the prison and were fixed the day after he died. Host: There’s a statement about Epstein being found dead in a cell dated Friday, August 9, but Epstein was found unresponsive at 06:30 a.m. on August 10. An OCME official said he would arrive at the loading dock with a black vehicle to thwart the media, and asked if a decoy body is a common tactic. Is that standard practice? JP: It’s exceptionally unusual. I’ve never heard of a decoy body used to trick the press in this context. Host: There’s mention that Epstein’s ear looked off compared with what’s typical in descriptions, and that forensic exams describe his penis as the penis of a normal circumcised male, which contradicts victims’ descriptions. JP: There’s been “a lot of powerful” footage from the prison area the day after Epstein’s death; the DOJ has removed some material from their site. The cameras not recording to the DVR was a known issue; a specific camera allegedly focused directly on Epstein’s housing area was reportedly not recording, yet a clip exists from that camera. Host: They’ve found sulfuric acid purchases. One line of thought is water treatment for a pool on Epstein’s island, but sulfuric acid could also be used to decompose bodies. There’s debate about whether Epstein would hire a water-treatment company or buy acid himself, and a tweet-inflamed exchange about its use in drugs. JP: There are claims that sulfuric acid could be for water treatment or for decomposing bodies; another theory is that it’s used for meth production. There’s also a claim that a hotel-ban on sulfuric acid purchases was posted, and Elon Musk and Roger Stone commented—Stone denying the “dead bodies” theory and saying it’s for drugs. Host: The discussion shifts to a hearing with Pam Bondi, which was described as unhelpful—she wouldn’t answer direct questions. This aligns with a broader frustration that the DOJ hasn’t followed up sufficiently on questions raised by leaked material. JP: The code-language topic: pizza and grape soda appear in emails that are redacted or ambiguous. A common interpretation is that pizza refers to girls and grape soda to something else, with other terms like cheese, pasta, and beef jerky appearing in the communications. Host: A DOJ intelligence bulletin maps code words used by pedophiles; “pizza” correlates with girl, “pasta” with little boy, “cheese” with little girl, and “beef jerky” appears in multiple messages. There’s a specific exchange: Jeremy Epstein’s people discuss a “torture” topic in an email chain, and others reference “torture videos” or “torture” in various contexts. JP: The interpretation of “torture” could be sexual in nature (role-playing) or something more explicit; there’s a push to see if the language is literal or coded. The difficulty is prosecutorial—coded language can be hard to prove in court, and people often plead plausible deniability. Host: There are examples like a discussion about “shrimp” and “white sharks” with references to Russian girls, and a separate exchange on “a baby” being bought, with Epstein replying in a way that avoids explicit commitment—further supporting the idea of evasion via coded or oblique language. JP: There’s a long thread involving a Harvard professor, a Nigerian-Portuguese contact, and an Israeli operation thread; Epstein’s reply, “I loved the torture video,” is read as a sexual or possibly role-playing reference, though another interpretation is that it’s about a non-literal, sexualized scenario. The doctor-patient or professional context is complicated by the presence of sexual tokens and “torture” terminology. Host: There’s also a notable exchange about “an aquarium full of girls” and “white sharks” with reference to Russian girls, and a line about a “king of Saudi” with possible high-level connections. The breadth of names—royal, political, academic—suggests a wide network, possibly used for blackmail, leverage, or influence. JP: A recurring theme is blackmail: Epstein’s network could have backed or driven blackmail operations. There are redacted or partially redacted files that could contain more explicit material, including a photo involving a public figure with a girl; even if the girl is over 18, the context remains incriminating and suspicious. Host: The possibility Epstein is alive remains a fringe theory, but there are inconsistent elements—the ear and nose differences in purported body images, the decoy body claim, and the press-release date discrepancy—that feed ongoing speculation about whether there was a replacement or manipulation of the body, or whether a genuine death occurred with unresolved questions remaining. JP: Overall, the files present a web of coded language, high-profile associations, and forensic ambiguities that keep fueling questions about Epstein’s death, the handling of evidence, and the breadth of possible blackmail networks tied to powerful individuals. Host: The conversation ends with a plan to revisit these threads, given the ongoing releases and the sheer volume of material, acknowledging that each new item tends to expand the mystery rather than resolve it.

The host asks Nick Fuentes to clear up common misconceptions. The host asks if Fuentes hates all Jews. Fuentes answers no. The host asks if Fuentes is an anti-Semite or a noted anti-Semite. Fuentes answers no. The host asks if Fuentes believes white people are superior to all other races. Fuentes answers no. The host asks if Fuentes wants to eradicate all non-whites from the United States. Fuentes answers no. The host notes Barry Weiss may be watching. The host mentions a recurring claim that Fuentes is a Fed. The host asks Fuentes if he is a Fed. Fuentes answers no. The host references a claim by Julie Michaels that Fuentes had said that women either want or need to be raped and asks Fuentes to confirm whether he believes women should be raped as a matter of policy. Fuentes responds, “Yeah. You’re correct on that. Yes.” The host then addresses controversy about Fuentes’ view on Charlie Kirk and asks about a conspiracy theory that Fuentes blames Jews for everything, specifically whether Fuentes believes the Jews killed Charlie Kirk. Fuentes responds that he does not believe that; as it stands right now, he thinks it was Tyler Robinson. The host concludes that this topic has generated speculation and suggests many would lump Fuentes together with those conspiracies. The host then says they’ve cleared that up and notes that some listeners may be new to Fuentes’ story, asking Fuentes to share his background. Fuentes is then asked to tell “folks out here” his story, signaling a transition to a personal background recount.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

The speaker references an episode where The Baron Coleman expands on Camp Huachuca, suggesting that the beep on the base could have been involved. The speaker states they did research in response to that suggestion and found a compelling video from The Baron Coleman. They note that there is actually video of Vance on the base, which indicates it could not have been Vance on the base. The speaker acknowledges they are getting ahead of themselves and plans to discuss more about this tomorrow. They describe The Baron Coleman’s video as very compelling.

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.