The Exploding Mic That Allegedly KILLED Charlie Kirk - Jon Bray joins Zach Costello

What's going on everybody? As you all can see, well, first of all, welcome to the Zack Costello Show. And then, as you all can see, we've got a special guest with us today. We have John Bray, John Aaron Bray, uh, here with us. John, welcome to the Zack Costello Show.

>> Thanks for having me. Um, John, you have been, I would say, leading the charge with regard to the exploding microphone theory or argument or thesis regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination case. Um, the question that I want to kind of lead off with you here is, and this kind of I want I want this to tie in a little bit to kind of who you are, what your background is, um, kind of what you could say qualifies you or made you curious with regard to the theory that you're pursuing here, but then also with just regard to the whole Charlie Kirk assassination case in general, kind of go back to September 10th, Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The event happened. What were the things that you were seeing? What were you thinking initially? And then what caused you to kind of start to move toward uh the initial uh workings of of your theory or thesis that you're on now?

>> Um, well, I first saw it just scrolling through my phone. I saw the um kind of that front view and uh the first thing caught my eye was the shirt and my initial impression was like, this is just AI people that hate Charlie Kirk, you know, trying to get clicks um saying, you know, that that he was assassinated. Uh, but then I just did a quick search and and the news was rolling out at that time. So I was like, "Wow, it it really happened." Um, but then my mind went back to the shirt. I was like, "Well, that just looks so strange." You know, the shirt collar raising up by his face. Um, and so it brought me back to my work with the uh soft armor, ballistic armor. I developed the uh the refurbishment program for IOTVs, OTVs for the army. Um, basically they were issuing these vests. They were getting dirty. They were letting them piled up and they were running out of vests. They were sending people to the front lines without body armor. And they had body armor stacked up in all the central issue facilities. They were just filthy. So, they needed a way to clean them and refurbish them without damaging the ballistic performance. So, um, my family is like comes from a technical textile background and we had all the technology they needed to test it at our facility. So, they came and contracted with us. We we helped them design the study. We ran the study on site. You know, we were taking shipping containers full of vests and cleaning them and then testing them afterwards with uh ballistic testing to sure that they didn't degrade the performance. And so, um, after seeing a bunch of those ballistic tests performed, it made me think that he had uh some sort of armor on because of the way the shirt jumped around. That's kind of like a soft armor. It's like a a catcher's mitt. When it when it captures the bullet, it kind of like closes around the edges and jerks like that. So, I thought that's what I was seeing. So I actually made my first uh kind of pixel flow code to map where that bullet would have struck cuz you can, depending on the deformation of the soft armor, you can predict where the actual impact was. So I was curious where the impact was uh to try to explain like if it was the edge shot and somehow the bullet ricocheted and kind of struck his neck. But uh before I even got to run that code, um, I started looking at the still pictures of Charlie that were coming out from earlier today when he was kind of coming out to the crowd tossing the hats around and it became really clear to me that there's no way he had any armor on because you could see like all the fine details. It was just a t-shirt on like he had no, there's no layers of anything else there. So I already had the code made. So, I just ran the code um and it kept flagging the area underneath the microphone as the the center of the kind of the epicenter of the movement.

>> And I thought that was really odd. Um, and then I I went back and took the videos and slowed them down. And it was just weird how the microphone kind of like took this trajectory across his chest. In the first few angles, you kind of see the magnetic clasp go across his chest and then the clasp kind of disappears and then you get this wound on his neck. So my initial impression was that the movement caused the magnet clasp to come loose and that struck his neck and that caused the wound just because the timing and the trajectory kind of matched up. We see it moving in the in the same trajectory of the wound appears and then a magnetic clasp is no longer visible but we have this rectangular wound that appears like right in sequence like everything kind of lined up. So that was my initial impression. I misidentified the the um random microphone. Um, and then, uh, later when the side view came and we can see the necklace traveling up and over his head, the necklace kind of takes a weird bend around his ear. And I thought he had like a earpiece on, but kind of like with the body armor, when I went back and looked at all the photos, it was obviously didn't have an earpiece on. He never wore an earpiece in any of the other events.

>> So then, um, better versions of those videos started to get uploaded and you could see that was the necklace. I'm like, "All right." So, now I'm back to my original map that showed the epicenter around the the microphone. Now, I'm pretty sure the necklace snaps around the microphone. So, that takes me to, you know, it wasn't a year before then that we had the Lebanese kind of pager incident. So, it's like, all right, so we have electronic devices that that were like remotely detonated um with pretty sophisticated means. It wasn't like someone, you know, went and actually like hacked each one. And these were distributed and used for years and they hacked the cell phone systems to send a signal out to them.

>> So that really got my mind wondering like, could this microphone case have something to do with it? And so I started to look up once I identified the the correct microphone brand, I started to look at videos of them disassembling just to see what the battery looked like, what the internals looked like, how much space was inside the case. Um, and I realized that the case was basically largely void outside of a a thin, you know, um, PCB board, circuit board, and a 300 milliamp battery. There was really just a bunch of space in the case. It wasn't necessarily like it didn't need to be as big as it was. Basically, there was there's plenty ample room for someone to go and modify and add something to it, and it would still be fully functional. You would never know it. Um, so then I I had to really investigate. It was a unique type of Rogue mic. It wasn't the regular version. It was the Pro version. And majority of the people, they when you see people use them, they use the Go version. I was like, well, what is the difference between the Pro version and the Go version? And it's basically the the Pro version has an ARM processor on it that's designed to sync the frames up with whatever camera you have the um the microphone hooked to. So it has a really like millisecond um precision timer on it to ensure that the audio matches perfectly with the frames that are recorded on the camera. And so I realized quickly that that could have been used to basically uh control the device. It's a very similar processor that was in the pagers. So, um, it wasn't like something out of the question to to to think that it was completely novel. It's something that's been done before. And it had the processing power and it had the uh the latency to be able to kind of match it up with the the sound of the rifle because at that point I'm I'm thinking like, if that was going to work, it has to be timed up with the sound of the rifle because if you hear the rifle and then it goes off before or after it, it won't the visual effect is isn't as powerful. Like it needs to be close enough that the sound of the rifle is arriving at around the same time that the detonation goes off. So the movement of the shirt and the sound of the rifle are are in sync and it it feels the the illusion of the movement that we saw and the wound that we saw being caused by the sound of the rifle. Um, and so once I really dug in and saw, you know, how easy it would be to to modify basically the firmware of the um the processor in the Rogue microphone, how it had the capabilities to time it properly, it had enough space in the case to house a device like that, it became more and more probable as I I was kind of just fleshing out the idea. And so then I started to refine the code to get it where it was basically more accurate at finding what I was looking for. The first initial version of the code was just to try to find where a bullet hit in soft armor. So, um, it was mainly looking at like textile deformation. Um, it's kind of like a two-dimensional map. So then I refined the code to be more three-dimensional so we could see how it's moving in all angles, see the fastest and then the general direction of the movement because it would give us a more refined view of kind of the expansive event, you know, that I was kind of theorizing. And uh the more I ran the code and the better quality uh videos that were being made available, we were basically getting closer and closer to the originals, you know, where the people that originally uh recorded the video and uploaded them, they were getting copied and copied, we were getting third or fourth order copies. Well, now we were getting second and first order copies. So the the resolution was a lot higher. Um, and every set that I would run, it would get more and more accurate to showing the general area where it came from. And then, uh, the the thing that really changed the whole kind of thesis was the UVU video being released because it shows that the magnet clasp was still attached. So then I had to kind of reapproach the whole idea that now the object that I thought struck the throat couldn't have been the magnetic clasp because it was still attached. So I was kind of left for a few weeks kind of, you know, um trying to figure out what it could have been. So I found one of the actual microphones, the exact same brand and make that Charlie wore that day and I purchased it off of eBay. And once that arrived and I was able to actually um get my hands on it, I realized a few things that the glass, the front of that microphone was made of like a uh chemically enhanced or tempered glass. And the one I bought was actually already shattered and it was, you know, like a cell phone does where it just spiderwebs all over the edge but it stays in place. It was like that. And when I um I disassembled the microphone, the first thing I noticed was that it had a circuit board with like a blue solder mask on it where normally circuit boards are green. And so um I knew that the object that raised his shirt collar up had like a particular like shade to it, a bluish gray shade. And initially I thought it was possibly his cross pendant because it was like that kind of like uh stainless steel sterling silver look and it was within that color spectrum. But as soon as I opened that case up and I saw that blue solder mask and the pattern of the circuit board, I re um immediately recognized it and knew that it was the object that raised the shirt collar up. And then as I pulled the circuit board out, I saw the battery, which was the exact same shape as the uh the magnetic clasp. So then it all came together for me. It was like a revelation. And I have to thank Trigger, he pushed back on this when uh when I was doing the first shows. He was he was saying, you know, I don't think it was a magnetic clasp because we see that in other videos and I went and, you know, at that point all none of the videos showed it other than two angles that you could see the magnetic clasp after the the wound appears. So, you know, that was like a revelation to me. Um, kind of in between those two interviews I realized that it was much cleaner than my initial kind of thesis was. You the necklace caused the shirt to raise up and the magnet clasp struck the neck. But once I realized that it was internal um components of the microphone that actually caused the shirt collar movement and the neck wound, then that explained the fragmentation that we were seeing kind of traveling away from Charlie also. And then wasn't too far after that that Candace Owens released the pictures of inside the SUV where we see the fragmentation on the floor of the SUV. So, you know, it was kind of like all these things came together separately, but once once all that data was made available, um it it all kind of fit together really well that, you know, the all the the the unexplained kind of phenomenon that we were seeing in and around Charlie immediately during the event could be explained by a case failure of the microphone and shrapnel traveling across his chest, but then kind of the the evidence left behind on the table and in the SUV, they all fit together too. It all made sense.

>> Mhm. There's a lot there. There's a lot there. And as you were talking, I was kind of, you know, taking some notes with regard to different ways that I want to go with this. The first, the first question that I want to shoot back to you, well, statement and then question, which I find very interesting because ultimately what you were pursuing very early on is consistent with what actually Gary Melton with Paramount Tactical was pursuing with regard to body armor and then a ricochet up, which would account and explain for just about everything that occurred that day with regard to shirt behavior, wound type, etc. But here's the thing that I find interesting. Once once we found out that Charlie was not wearing body armor, and I totally agree with you, there were very obvious photos of him even sitting in the chair. You could clearly see nipples. You could see the cross outline. You could see you could see everything. Basically, it was a pretty pretty tight fitting shirt and you could clearly see that Charlie was not wearing body armor. And then I think Turning Point USA came out and then confirmed that he was not wearing body armor that day. Um, what I find interesting though is that Gary then moved to, okay, then it must be the gunshot from the Los Cy center roof. And then he's gone on to explain that the upward shirt movement, which again I find very interesting because when anybody when anybody recreates this, they can't recreate the vertical shirt movement upward. They can't recreate the the necklace movement upward. But one of his arguments is that the way that this upward movement was caused was because I believe that he he attributed attributes it excuse me to the necklace. So he he thinks that that movement here is the necklace. Um, what I find very interesting about your argument is your identification of is it, correct me if I'm wrong. It's the is it the battery that emerges from or the circuit board? There it is. The blue hue circuit board that emerges from Charlie's shirt that you've actually identified as something that becomes visible in that event that that you've identified that from the from the from the camera angle I believe from what the UVU review.

>> Uh, yeah, all the videos you can see it from other than the uh the two videos from the uh his right hand side because his shoulder is kind of in the way. But any video from the front, you can see the outline of the circuit board and the shirt which is the exact same size as this circuit board. And then a frame after that, you see the edge of the circuit board peek out of his shirt collar before it falls down and underneath his shirt. So I have the the general shape of the circuit board which matches and then the color hue and pattern of the circuits that you can see from the edge of it. Uh, they also match.

>> H So your one of your original thoughts was that the uh the clip, the magnetic clip on the outside was what pierced his neck.

>> Yeah, exactly. Um, because uh the first um two or three video angles you see kind of the the magnet clasp take this general trajectory and then it kind of disappears where it it springs back and folds over over itself and you don't see it. But at that exact same time, there's not a moment that you you see the magnetic clasp and the neck wound at the same time.

>> And you can see the battery and the magnetic clasp are almost the exact same size. So, you know, it was easy for me to see the trajectory of it and see the shape of the wound and just make the assumption that it was the magnetic clasp that caused the neck wound. But as those angles from, you know, the um the different further away and kind of to his left side, they they were able to see it kind of underneath the fold of his shirt. It made it clear that it the magnet clasp stayed attached. Um, not with the case. It it wouldn't be able to hide behind the case. But because the case suffered a failure, it was basically just the clip and the clasp. So, it was thin enough where it could fold over itself and kind of hide itself from view from the the angles that were in front of Charlie.

>> And you think that the the clip staying on there, remaining on there after the event is is something that's possible?

>> Yeah, the back plate basically um was the the op the area of the microphone that suffered the least kind of pressure from the um the event would be the back plate. The first thing that's going to uh basically have to give is the uh the face of the microphone. It's when that overpressurization of the case is going to open up the the case on one side and that's why we see fragmentation in glass all over the place because that's where the majority of the energy was displaced in in the face of the microphone and then the sides of the microphone. So when the face and the sides are kind of out of the way, there's nothing there to hold the pressure anymore. So the back plate doesn't really have nothing but momentum kind of pushing it. And that's kind of if you look at the event in slow motion, you can see it. It moves.

>> The um the clasp moves really fast at first and then as we see the shirt collar move up and um the neck wound appear, it slows down and it has a lot less energy because the bulk of the recoil from the blast was displaced into the circuit board and the battery. And once they were removed from the case, then it didn't really have a lot of energy left for it to move around and it kind of returns to its original position.

>> Mhm. So, one of the questions that I want to ask is you brought up like the the pager. So, you know, Bibi Netanyahu gives President Trump the golden pager because they executed the the pager and the walkie-talkie attack in Lebanon. Um, as as you mentioned, I have a question for you. So, with regard to the victims um that were killed or attacked by those pagers or walkie-talkies, have you seen any photos of any of those injuries that any of the victims have? And and if so, are they consistent with any with what with what happened to Charlie Kirk?

>> Yeah, there's actually a lot of data on that. Um, where they basically went through all the injuries that were suffered and categorized them. Majority of the of the injuries were to the hands and the face of the individual. So, um, to it was an encrypted signal that was sent to the the pagers and they had to hold two buttons down to unencrypt it and they were looking at the pager while it happened. So, okay, the majority of the injuries are to the fingers and to the face because they were looking down at it. And then it had a a certain um, a backup uh kind of detonation. If the if the um message wasn't encrypted or decrypted by pushing the buttons over a set of time, it would just detonate by itself. So, there's there's some pagers that just blew up on furniture or blew up in people's pockets. Um, but one common thing is that there's no like resid like black residue or or soot and you know, you have debris from the batteries because this was inside of a like a rechargeable double A alkaline battery

>> um style and so there's a lot of debris from the actual battery shells themselves. Um, and then the fragmentation from the microphone was the case of the microphones were fragmented. There would usually be majority of one end of the pager would would still be intact. Um, and then the face of the pager would kind of be gone. Like you wouldn't be able to recognize the front face, but the back face of it would be intact. So much so you could almost see the serial number on the back. The walkie-talkies were even more so like very um um directed where only the battery side of the walkie-talkie kind of suffered damage. There would just be a little dent in the side of the walkie-talkie that was faced away from the individual. So, you know, you wear a walkie-talkie in a very uh with the microphone and and the speaker facing out. And so, you know, it was very directed um that that charge. And that was a lithium ion battery. So, it was a lot more along the lines of the battery that was in the microphone, just a larger version of it, but a lot less damage to the actual device on the walkie-talkies than the pagers just because the the application was different because the the styles of the battery were uh different. It was a patch like a pouch style battery on the walkie-talkies as opposed to a round double A style in the pagers.

>> Okay. So, with regard to what actually struck Charlie, and I just I just want to clarify this just so I I'm I'm clear. What because we hear this talk about shape charge, but I know that you mentioned maybe a circuit board or maybe some other aspect of the microphone that is actually what punctured Charlie's neck. What specifically hit Charlie? Like, what are we talking about here? Like, I've heard shape charge that was directed at Charlie. Um, like what what are we talking about here specifically?

>> As far as the evidence I have of him actually being directly hit with the shape charge, um, we only have the um the shirt collar on the rear uh behind his neck um kind of like, you know, blowing out. It's not a flesh cavitation because it's just a void, right? We just see the fabric pull out.

>> And then we see a pink stain appear right at the kind of the peak of the stretching of the shirt. And then all the cameras around Charlie and even the UVU camera, they capture a frequency, a 58 hertz frequency, which is the exact frequency that your thorax would make if when your lung cavity is penetrated. So you can take basically the general size of Charlie's lung cavity by, you know, his his height and build. And it's like a drum. You can that inside cavity when it's penetrated and there's an expansive force inside of it, it bounces around and that frequency is predictable and it causes the thorax to react and that's the exact frequency that we would hear and it's the the it's not just a frequency, it's the duration of the frequency and when the frequency starts. It's it starts the exact moment we see the shirt collar stretch out and it lasts for the the exact period of time that, you know, the data uh says that it should last. Uh for the uh kind of the excitement of that penetration event depressurizing inside of his lung cavity. And then it matches his physical reactions to um that sort of uh shock wave happening internally would cause, you know, damage to his his u upper chambers of his heart. He would have brain stem damage. So the physical reaction that we see Charlie have where his knees come together, his muscles twitch and his arms kind of flex in and then he immediately he holds that for maybe a second or two and then he starts to relax where he's he's basically losing all motor functioning. That's exactly what you would expect from that sort of injury. So while we don't see the injury itself, there's evidence of it. The battery was a secondary event where it comes after those physical reactions and the frequency. Um, and the battery has evidence that kind of uh ties into those injuries also because of the the type of flow that we see from the fluid that comes out of his neck is is is right along the lines of the injuries that we would expect where it's it's it's not pulsating. We don't we don't see an active pulse. It's deoxygenated blood. So it means that it's just his jugular which is the just 3 centimeters underneath that area of his neck. So it wasn't a very deep wound and we actually see from uh two different camera angles the object fall out and fall to the ground and uh it's very consistent with the shape and color of the battery. So, you know, the amount of energy that was displaced in that kind of shrapnel effect, the the the wound type, the shape, the delayed bleeding, and then the type of bleeding that we see once it starts to bleed, they all line up with the the type of injuries that we would have expected Charlie to have before the neck wound. Um, if he if he the neck wound was the only injury he had, he shouldn't have had the physical reactions that he had. You know, he would have been reacting to getting hit in the neck. He would have still had physical control of his body. He wouldn't have slumped out of the chair immediately afterwards and we would have seen a pulse. You know, there would have his heart would have still been actively pumping. And so, even though the jugular is draining blood from his brain, his heart is still pumping blood to his brain. We should see a pulsation of it and it should have lasted for 30 seconds.

>> So, basically spurts. We would see blood spurts.

>> Exactly. And we we don't see any of that. It's just a depressurization. Uh, he's basically just losing blood pressure. And then once the blood pressure was gone, we we see very little bleeding after that. And so, you know, all that lines up with the frequency and the expected injuries that he would he would suffer from uh that sort of a jet penetration. And uh the lack of bleeding on the shirt is expected also because it's a a very hot gas that's penetrating. It's not a projectile. And so it basically cauterizes the wound and it would be a very small, you know, three millimeter s uh, you know, two to three millimeter hole with a very clean edge on it. Um, and majority of the damage would be internal. We wouldn't see a lot if any external bleeding from it. And that's all, you know, this is all like medical data. You can look it up like medical white papers from um different injuries from people handling explosives and things like that. Like this is all expected phenomenon. Nothing's kind of out of the ordinary um from from that sort of angle of the explanation.

>> Okay. So, what we're talking about here then as far as the as far as the fatal wound because ultimately the argument here is that this this neck wound that we saw was a mistake. It wasn't supposed to be there. So ultimately, this fatal wound that we're talking about isn't necessarily some type of projectile or whatever, some type of like when I envision shape charge, I'm thinking like a projectile going into Charlie. Is that what you're talking about here? Or are we talking about something else that would have caused that fatal wound? Are you arguing in his chest area? Is that is that the explanation?

>> Yeah, absolutely. And you know, I don't have physical visual evidence of it, but I have all the other other evidence that I would need to explain that. Um, so you outside of actually seeing the wound, I have all the evidence that would coordinate with that sort of injury happening. And it's not a projectile. So the the recoil from it is a lot less. It's it's literally just directed hot gas. Um, so you know, the um the mechanisms of a shape charge is basically they use a cone which directs that gas that expanding gas from the uh the gas expanding from the detonation and it it creates almost like a plasma hot plasma beam. Um, and it it tears away pieces of the cone as it goes along. And the cones are most often made of of copper, but they can be made from lead, uh, PTFE. There's a lot of different materials, but the general idea is that it it concentrates that expansive gas into a very small stream. And because that when you do that, it it creates a really high um, like Mach 7 plus speed, and it has ability to kind of just tear through things because it's moving so fast. And so that's why they use them to penetrate armor. Um, you know, you plate steel or you armored vehicles, it it blows holes right through them. And they don't have to strap this device down. They just set this device down that weighs, you know, less than five grams on a a piece of 3/4 inch steel and detonate it and it'll blow a hole right through the steel. So it kind of gives you the idea how efficient it is at at directing energy in one direction. And that explains why the shirt didn't tear. Why we we only see the movement that we see from the actual device. The recoil is is minimal. It's not like recoil from shooting a projectile that you have the equal and opposite of that high gram projectile going one direction and that energy is displaced in the other way. It's displaced it's displacing air. So it's very light. So the recoil is minimum.

>> Okay. So if that is the case, if that's the case, one of the more, I guess you can say convincing arguments that I that I was looking at early on with regard to the gunshot. And what I find very interesting about your thesis or your argument is is that that it does include a gunshot. It does include a gunshot that that comes in from a location that's very close to that Los Cy center rooftop. I find that very interesting. But what I also find interesting is that

>> I don't know if you've seen any of any of Dr. Chris Martinson's work. His argument is that because of where potential bullet came in, hit vertebrae, that it couldn't have come from that angle. So he he does a lot on shot angle second shooter analysis. But one of the aspects of his work that I thought was very good was the cavitation effect. So your what you just explained was a a specific type of of of cavitation where his his the thorax expanding or getting hit. And I apologize if I'm not uh interpreting that 100% accurately, but you have that in the audio analysis. So you basically have the audio analysis that that proves that what Charlie got hit with got hit with what? A projectile. Because I I think I'm I'm kind of going off the wheels here with regard to how I'm explaining your argument because what we're talking about here is with regard to this chest fatal wound. It would have been more like a plasma or a hot gas that ultimately that ultimately killed Charlie is what we're talking about here. That wound in his neck was a secondary wound that was that was a mistake. So, how does that square with the gunshot audio that is a part of your argument? And then how does that also square with again this cavitation that we're seeing? And then with regard to the audio of the thorax that that audio is not of a bullet hitting Charlie Kirk, that that that's a separate audio event. Am I getting that right?

>> Yeah, you're you're absolutely right. And we have the audio of the actual impact to his chest, but it it's order of magnitude less than the frequency of the penetration to his chest. So while, you know, we can't say for sure what that force was, we can say for sure that something impacted his chest. It penetrated his chest and the penetration force was was orders of magnitude stronger than the the force that struck his chest. So whatever did strike his chest, it it penetrated easily. It didn't it didn't lose a lot of energy and and reverberate a lot of frequency when it when it hit his chest. It it it it went through with ease. When it arrived at the at the inner walls of his lungs, it left a lot more energy in that transition. And that's why we have the frequency. It's so much louder in that range. Um, and then, you know, the shirt is just a secondary physical event that we see from it. And we know it's not a uh like traditional flesh cavitation. Cavitation is a effect on fluid. And so the back is is pretty lean muscle. There's not a lot of loose ligaments and we see the shirt collar stretched out and there's no flesh there. It's just a void of of between the his hairline and the back of his neck and where this shirt is stretched out. So, it had to be an expansive gas that caused the shirt collar to stretch out like in that manner.

>> So you don't think that was his that wasn't his back blowing out?

>> No. No, it it was a gas that caused that shirt uh to to stretch like it did. It would be.

>> And the pink stain that you referenced, what was the pink?

>> The pink stain is basically where there was a small the jet was just strong enough where a small stream of it was able to penetrate through the back. Um, and just a little bit of basically a fleshy material was was kind of uh transposed onto the inside of the shirt. And that's why we see a little just a faint pink stain show up. It's not like a a blood splatter like you would expect from a bullet impact. Um, and coming exit wound.

>> Yeah, from an exit wound. And as far as as far as like ballistic um, you know, analysis of impact, there is no evidence of a high velocity impact anywhere on Charlie. We don't have any for splatter. We don't have any back splatter. We don't have any traditional cavitation that you expect from a high velocity impact. So the the whole impact thesis is missing the key energy um, you know, signature that you would expect is the actual transfer of of force from velocity of the bullet hitting flesh. We we don't have any of that evidence. So until I see, you know, some of at least one characteristic that would lend me to believe that he was, you know, struck by a high velocity projectile. Um, I have to assume that he wasn't struck by any high velocity imp of projectile. What we see of the neck is of a medium velocity impact, medium to low velocity. Um, and so, you know, the second shooter and the alternative shooter angles, they're all missing the most important detail that any any u court case that was built off of just finding Charlie after the fact. If we didn't have all this narrative built and we had video of it, they would immediately be like, "All right, well, where's the evidence of let's rebuild where this impact was? Let's try to find the the the impact spatter. Let's try to find the uh exit wound splatter." None of that is available. So, you know, I like to give the analogy if we didn't have video of it. If Charlie was just walking down the street and this happened, they would never say that he was shot by a gun or a rifle because we don't have any evidence that would suggest that.

>> And I think that that is a very important point and I think that there were a lot of people who are experts in this in in this regard uh with regard to um, you know, gunshot wounds or ballistics. Very early on, the almost like common sense analysis of this was just like, no way, no way that's a no way that's a gunshot from a 306, like no chance. Um, which I find very interesting and and and what that what that hits on is that basically when it comes down to it, I have we really have five five theories. We have five theories that all come into play here with regard to what happened to Charlie Kirk. Okay, I have these named as number one. We have fed slop, right? We'll name it that. We'll name it fed slop, which is that Tyler Robinson was the lone wolf who took the shot with a 306 given to him by his grandfather from the Los Cy center roof. He ran off. He got found 33 hours later. He's getting the death penalty, right? That's the fed slop narrative. The second one is that we have a second shooter. Both of those both of those involve a gunshot. Okay? Both of those involve a gunshot. And here's the thing with regard to all five of these theories, and we were talking about this before we went live. It's like nothing is perfect. Nothing's perfect, right? There are holes or kind of, you know, discrepancies in every single one. And I think if you're analyzing this objectively, you have to acknowledge the different things that are good about each argument, the different things that are bad about each argument. I think what a lot of people, especially with regard to the fed slop narrative, do is that they don't actually they don't actually apply the same logic that they would apply to something like the exploding mic or, you know, a second shooter, for example, they don't apply that logic to their own narrative. And when it comes to both the fed slop and the second shooter, what they have trouble squaring, and I've heard you say this term before, like the math doesn't math with regard to wound, shirt behavior, and necklace. That's very difficult for a lot of people to wrap their heads around when it comes to those two um arguments specifically.

>> Yeah. With regard to the next. So, we have the fed slop, we have the second shooter, we have I'll I'll just I'll say exploding mic. That's that's what we're talking about here. Then we have necklace. We have the necklace. So, not the Rogue microphone, but the necklace. You and I along with um Blake Bednar's, Matt McKim from Black Line Brief, like we all got on and we talked about kind of the different arguments regarding these two different theories. We were talking about the exploding Rogue microphone versus the necklace. What do you find problematic about the necklace being the epicenter of this event, I guess you would say?

>> Well, it doesn't explain what lifted his shirt collar up or what could create the wound. It It can be one or the other. There's only one pendant on the necklace. We can see the outline of the necklace really well. It didn't have the extra pendants on it. It was just a cross on a on a chain. So, that's then that's an important observation. You can actually see that through the photos that we're looking at. With regard to I mean, I I wear a cross necklace as well with no other pendants on it. When you put other pendants on a necklace, they stick out. They go in different directions. You can very clearly see in when before Charlie starts speaking in the necklace that he's wearing, he only has that cross pendant on that necklace.

>> Yeah, absolutely. It's undeniable. Um, so for for us to kind of reconcile the cross and chain being the cause of these two unexplained phenomena, it can do one or the other. It can't do both. The cross can raise the shirt collar up or it can make the neck wound, but it can't do both because they happen at the same time. They're basically, you know, the actions are are the the shirt collar is raised up while the neck wound is is in transition. It's basically starting its process already. So, if the cross caused the shirt collar to raise up, then it couldn't possibly cause the neck wound. And if it caused the neck wound, then it couldn't possibly cause the shirt collar to raise up. And we know that there's an object that causes the shirt collar to raise up. It's not the chain itself because we see a rectangular or square bulge in the shirt. And then we also see the object kind of peek out from underneath the shirt. So it's a tangible solid object. It's not a the chain with momentum that's causing it to move. Um, so it's just hard to reconcile those two um things that we have to with account for and it I just don't know how you would account for both of those actions with a single, you know, pendant on a chain causing both of them regardless of the amount of energy that was involved. David could just do one or the other. It could do both.

>> Do you think that uh Charlie faked his death? That would be another one of the the theories that has been proposed.

>> I think that you have to look at Charlie's character and what that would involve. So that would involve Charlie abandoning his family. It would involve Charlie basically allowing someone to be falsely accused and face the death penalty. And it would involve him just uh kind of relinquishing control of his whole organization that he he spent the better part of his life building to uh other people that could do whatever they want. And so if we look at kind of the the the aftermath of Charlie passing and we see how those have affected the things that he probably cared about most, his family and his organization um and his integrity, uh I think that he's sacrificing everything that he lived his life for. And so I I would have to I would have to assume that he was a charlatan, that that the character that we knew of Charlie was not true if he was willing to do that. And I just don't have any indication that Charlie was an authentic person. He didn't give me any any clues of ever being unauthentic. I think the the people the person we knew as Charlie Kirk was very much the person he was day to day day in day out. And we can't really reconcile his actions with his character if that was his actions, right? If he was faked his death.

>> I I agree with that analysis. I think that's probably the strongest analysis with regard to Charlie faking his death. Um, one of the things that I actually heard you say that I thought was a very strong point in this regard is that actually doing this would actually make Charlie a potential murderer. If if Tyler Robinson goes down with the death penalty because of this, like if if that's what happens here, then are we are we going to all sit here and say that we believe that Charlie Kirk was willing to kill somebody else in order to to allow all of this to happen? Like is that what we're saying here? So I think that that's an I think that that argument right there is probably the strongest one against the the fake death argument.

>> Yeah.

>> Like we I think we we both agree. I think it sounds like that Charlie Kirk was authentic. Like that's one of the arguments I've been making with regard to this whole political cultural fallout from this is that like Charlie Kirk was a good person, high character, authentic, like stood for what he believed in and like he kind of was what he was.

>> Yeah. We're sick and tired in this day and age of people who are inauthentic, lie, spin. I mean, these are some of the problems that Turning Point USA has gotten themselves in now. But

Charlie was was not that way. And I think that that's I think that's the reason why you have what has become this whole decentralized open-source investigation to what happened to him because we are at a point in time where it is kind of like we have an elitist class versus the versus the everyday people like the working-class people of the world not just in America. And this was an individual who really represented and was representative of the people right when it all comes down to it. And we we we kind of feel like one of us was taken and that we're being lied to about it, right? So, I think that that probably speaks to a lot of what's happening here.

Um, so I want to move to one of the arguments that's being made against the exploding mic. And you've kind of you've kind of touched on this and you've hit on it here as we've been talking is that there's an argument being put out there and it's being shared by guys like like Gary Melton in particular and and I and I know that you've seen this on X because you've responded to this guy. Um, his name is Tardio on X and he has basically come out and said it it sounds like he's an ex-military explosive expert and he's come out and said that the exploding mic theory is impossible like it's not possible. And the reason that he gives is because I guess of the size of the cha say the the size of the charge and how far away it was and then the fact that there was no charring or no kind of marks on the shirt or around Charlie Kirk.

So he put together uh he he did a you know a kind of a debunking because this is what they do. They always do like there's always a constant debunking that never really seems to to really debunk. But he he put together a video and then he put out some posts on X and and I know that you know who this is because you've responded to him. But he did a video here. I wanna I want to play this clip for you so that you can take a look at this. You can see what his argument is and then I want to see what your response to it is. So I'm going to bring that up and then we'll I'll play it. It's about four minutes. Just signal to me if you see something that comes up that you want to comment on. It kind of starts out with like his argument of the size of it and then it moves to an example that he uses of a shape charge being used in a field on a steel lock. So, um that's kind of the format of it, but just watch it. If you want to uh speak to anything, just kind of give me a signal.

>> Actual charge that people such as Ian Carol are accusing of being the charge in question is what's known as a shaped charge. A shaped charge is very unique within itself. All right. It consists of a cylinder, and you're going to see why, and I'll explain to you in a second. It consists of a cylinder with a hollow void. And that hollow void is literally that. Sometimes it's lined with copper, but you can also make these things out of glass bottles if you really want to improvise one to be honest, like a wine bottle, for example. But I digress. Getting back into it, that empty void is then wrapped in explosives and filled all the way up to the top. And there's a pre precise formula that's been around since the late 1800s. Literally, this was discovered back in the 1890s. And the military has been trying to perfect it ever since for obvious reasons. The Russians came out with a really good version. You guys might know it as a RPG7. A lot of people think that that's EFP or an explosively formed projectile, but it's not. It's actually a shape charge. The cone over in the front of the RPG7 is actually a standoff distance, which is also very important. That cone exists for a reason, to make sure that the explosive jet or the extremely hot jet that's being compressed inside of that cone has a chance to form and work its way down. And there's a very specific distance that makes it effective and it's based on the diameter of the actual cylinder itself.

Now, I know what you guys are thinking, but Matt, if it's a micro charge, a very, very tiny charge, would we have actually even seen it explode and would have been able to contain the explosion? Good question. Good question. That's what this video is for that I'm about to play for you guys. This video right here on your screen is 2 and 12 g of TATP. That's it. Not a whole lot. 2 and a half grams. And you can see where he put his cone inside of there. And this is just a guy playing around two and a half grams. Now, notice how he has those little popsicle sticks or match sticks that are attached to it. That's for the precise standoff. And quite frankly, he's probably got a little bit too much standoff on it. But that's fine. His target's going to be this lock. Now, knowing everything that you know about Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, you would assume that this extremely tiny shape charge, 2 and a half g, which by the way, there's 454 g per pound, just for reference. All right, it's actually 453 and some change, but we just round up and say 454. So, this guy's only got 2 and a half g inside of this little explosive device that you're about to see. Let's go ahead and keep the video rolling.

Now, you see how he's got it set on that lock. His goal is to try to blow a hole through that lock. And he's using what looks like fireworks fuse in order to get it set off. He's then going to light the fuse and he's going to run away. Now, how small of an explosion do you think 2 and a half g is about to make? Pretty small, right? According to Candace Owens and everybody else, because this is a directional charge is what you've been told. And you just direct it to go in a certain direction down and into the lock. Let's take a look. Woo! Look at that sucker burn. She going, she going. She going, she going. And gone. Now, that was 2 and a half g. And what I love about this video is the guy actually does come over and show you particularly what happened to it afterwards. So, let's just go ahead and speed through and take a look at the lock that he ends up picking up. You guys are going to see that there's a little hole in the top of that lock. And that hole exists for a reason. It's because of that hot jet that I ended up telling you about. But there's something else in particular that you're going to notice. Whoop. So, we can pause it right there. This screen's nice and big. Here's your little hole. And then everything else, you notice all of the spalling that's around. You guys see all these little metal spalls and all of that that's going around that have peppered everywhere? That exists for a reason. And I'll tell you why in a second. This is a massive chunk of that copper jacket. Now, most notably, it didn't even punch a hole completely through that lock. It did do damage to it, though. But notice how tiny that is. I You couldn't even fit like the entire tip of a pen inside of there. You can fit a maybe a tapered portion of a pencil, like a quarter of an inch max, inside there. But it certainly didn't blow a hole all the way through it. And that was with what is called the optimal standoff distance, particularly for that charge.

What did we learn from this video? Well, we learned that 2 and a half g actually makes a very big boom. So, you can see right off the get-go if this was actually placed inside of Charlie Kirk's microphone. Number one, even at the optimal distance, we would have a very tiny pinhole in his neck with a bunch of sping if they used too much copper. You would also have plastic and maybe some front-facing glass off the microphone that would be embedded in his body as well. Simply because it is a directional charge does not mean that it doesn't explode in every direction. And anybody that's ever seen an RPG smashing into a building or freaking seen a movie knows this. >>

Okay. So, ultimately what he's arguing there is that the distance because of the size of the charge and the distance from the mic to his neck is that it could not have caused ultimately that injury. But I think I'll let you go. I'm not going to put words in your mouth. I'll let you respond to what you just saw because you're the expert on this, not me. So, I'll shut up.

So that was that was a a homemade device. The guy he synthesized this this explosive himself. You can't buy this explosive. It's federally regulated. Um and when you're like the AES plant that what they specialize in is pelletizing the PETN. So it has to be compressed to a very specific density for it to burn cleanly. So, not only was this homemade PETN or explosive that probably had contaminants in it, that's why you see so much of the smoke, which will still wasn't a lot of smoke from what most people would assume.

Um the the whole shape charge was was, you know, homemade. So, the the precision that he manufactured this was was not great. He was just making a YouTube video.

Yeah. Uh, also he he's uh insinuating that the shape charge was directed at the neck, which it it wasn't. Um, and then he's using the example of a 2 and a half gram when uh if you look at the frequencies that we detected from underneath the tent and you kind of work backwards. Um, you know, the frequencies that are created from explosion, you can kind of assess the size of the charge from that. And it's somewhere around a half gram that was placed inside of the rope mic. It if that was the frequency that we detected, right, that's what it would lined up with. And that would be a 10 mm by 15 mm uh charge would hold that. And that fits well within the uh microphone with that that distance he's talking this standoff distance. He's absolutely correct. It's a it's a a well-defined mathematical equation. And for that size charge, it's 8 mm. And a 15 mm charge inside with a 8 mm standoff well fits inside a 44x 44 uh by 18 mm um microphone case. So his arguments are kind of working in my favor once you have the actual data to to back it up. He was just uh inferring that it was impossible because he doesn't provide any of the actual data about the case itself, the size of the charge, the the purity of or the density of the charge in the device and then the uh sophistication of the manufacturer. So obviously this this was not a uh a YouTuber at home creating this and sneaking it into Charlie's microphone. This was probably a pretty a well-funded sophisticated outfit. Um, and so it would be well-made, well-designed, well tested, high purity. Um, so all the uh kind of the gotcha details that he is using to kind of um debunk, if you will, the the idea that it would be possible, they don't really line up with the reality of the situation.

Um, it the charge fits well within the the case. It would have the perfect standoff distance. The charge wasn't directed at the neck. the um the explosive force that he's saying that we should see is the cause of the shrapnel that causes his shirt collar to raise up, causes the battery to strike his neck, causes the fragmentation that we see flying out from underneath his shirt, causes the necklace to break and fly over his neck. Um so, you know, he's he's kind of without knowing it, he's actually lending credibility to the whole thesis because all the phenomenon he's saying that we should see, we see. He's just misidentifying it.

>> Right? And one of the things he's misidentifying is actually what wound you're talking about, which which I think is important as to what you clarified here, is that the fatal wound was actually was actually in the chest area. It wasn't actually the neck. So, I think he's he's confusing where the argument of the wound actually is.

>> Yeah. Cuz most people assume like, all right, they're going to they they they're trying to fake a rifle impact to the neck with a shape charge. So they assume that the shape charge had to shoot a projectile or or caused a wound to the neck, but they don't take into account that the first witnesses of the event that they had lined up, you know, that were very crisis actor like in their delivery, they all described Charlie getting hit in the chest, in the heart, died instantly. They all used the same verbiage to describe what they saw. And it wasn't an hour later that they switched and said, "No, he was hit in the neck. We saw the blood coming out of the neck." You know, so if you line all these kind of details up, it would it would lend one to believe that the original intent of the deception was to have people convinced that Charlie was shot in the chest. And so if we take that and line it up with the phenomenon that we witness, it would be a lot more plausible for someone to believe that Charlie was shot in the chest. If the shirt moves, he falls over and there's there's a a round entry wound on his chest, like it would be we could hear the autopsy, you know, laid out for us. And while the details wouldn't match perfect, it would be pretty close. And he mentions another detail is very important. They make the cone of these charges from copper, but they can make them from lead or any other material. So even the fragments that they claimed they found that they were so confident that they were going to find, that could have been by design. It's very easy. All we know is that it's a copper fragment that lead fragments that are consistent with a 30 caliber round. They're not matched if anything. So basically, they're just telling you that it's copper and lead that could possibly have been from a 30 caliber round, which is basically just saying it's copper and lead. So we know that this device could use copper and lead in the cone and we know by how he described that it would be displaced in the wound. So, you know, um, taking all those factors into account, if we didn't have the neck wound, it would be quite convincing argument that Charlie was shot in the chest of 30 off six. Everything would line up. The acoustics of the of the shot, the effects of physical effects of Charlie, and even the the fragmentation that would be left in his body would all line up. It would be very hard for anyone to argue that it wasn't the case.

>> Yeah. When I when I first saw it, like I was, you know, standing at my kitchen eating lunch and my father-in-law just sent me a text and just said Charlie Kirk and I was like I was like, "What?" So then I I went on X immediately and looked and and the first kind of view that I got of it, it was a far back view and it literally looked like he got shot in the chest. Like like from from far back that's exactly what it looked like. So yeah, that's funny that you say that because literally my first original thought was, oh my gosh, Charlie got hit in the chest and I was thinking like, okay, like hopefully he's all right, blah, blah, blah. And then, you know, fast forward maybe 30 minutes later and then the up close view came and then you saw the neck wound and that's when people were like, or at least I was like, "Oh my gosh, like I don't I don't know how he could survive." Right. Like you see that and you're just like, "Oh my gosh." Like when you see blood gushing out of somebody's neck.

>> Yeah. Yeah. And he's, you know, I mean, you don't know if it's jugular blood or whatever it is, but when you see that, you're just like, how could he have survived? You know what I mean? Um, but I just find it interesting that very, you know, the first thing that I saw was from that far back angle was was a it looked like a chess shot. But in any case, with regard to the explosion, because I think there's a lot of people that have trouble accepting like an explosion in Charlie's chest area, because a lot of people will think like, "Oh, if there's an explosion, that means there's fire, there's smoke, there's charring." Like, why don't we see any of that? Uh well, I think his video kind of showed that with that the even that crude uh homemade device didn't didn't have a big fireball. It didn't leave a charring all over the lock. We saw the lock. It was relatively clean. He didn't wipe it with a rag. Um and like I like I explained before, he just literally set that device on top of the lock. It didn't need any force holding it down. And while the device did shatter into a bunch of pieces, like it didn't launch up like a rocket, um it it basically just kind of, you know, took a weird trajectory to the left or right. Um so we're kind of seeing what we would expect from it if we house that if this was a a professionally designed um you know, well-engineered device within the case of the microphone. Kind of all the phenomenon we see is what we can expect. We do see smoke. We from Candace Owens's uh back angle, you can see smoke on the opposite side of the collar. Interesting enough, it's the same trajectory that we see the circuit board and the battery take. From a front angle, we can see uh smoke escaping the collar. And this is one frame before we see the back of the collar stretch out. So, it's kind of the order operations match. The very first thing that you would see is a little smoke kind of um escaping the case as the pressurization is built. And then as that case opens up and that jet's able to form, then you would see the penetration force kind of uh cause the the shirt on the back to stretch out. And that's exactly what we see. And it's over in an instant. So the speed of the event is explained by the the type of explosives that were used too. It's a supersonic event. So it unfolds extremely fast and it's just over and there's not much remnants left of it. And from all the camera angles, that's exactly what we see. It's so fast that even the same brand camera that are within nine feet of each other on the same side recording the same thing, one in 60 frames per second, one in 30 frames per second, they they capture completely unique frames. So that means that the event was unfolding within like five millisecond a window where it one shutter captures a five millisecond frame that the next camera doesn't capture. It it captures a different order of the event uh as it unfolds. So you know all these characteristics of uh kind of the phenomenon that was captured they all line up with that sort of high order explosive event unfolding so fast that the naked eye could couldn't even perceive it.

So, one of the things that I think Baron Coleman discovered recently is that as a part of the contract with uh the AES plant that exploded that was manufacturing the the mini anti-personnel um anti-people, remove people devices. Uh as a part of this contract uh I think he identified uh I I believe C4 as as the potential material that might have been used as opposed to this PETN material that a lot of people are talking about being used. Can you explain what the differences are and and why, you know, that that that C4 material and finding that as what it as as a potential, excuse me, as a potential um option for for creating this device. Why is that important?

C4 is just RDX uh with a plasticizer. So RDX is like a cousin of PETN. They're probably within 15% of the power. PETN is just a little bit more powerful than RDX, but they're used interchangeably. Uh, and C4 is just RDX with a plasticizer, which means that it makes it into like a putty. Um, and the reason they do that is because it's easier to apply and it's a lot more stable. It's more difficult to detonate C4 than it is to detonate PETN or RDX. It's more uh stable form. Uh easier to apply, but the densities aren't quite there. And uh the contract, it doesn't absolutely spell out. There is a contract that they have for the C4, but it's not directly tied to that contract. Okay?

>> And I'm I'm not completely certain that that that contract is directly tied to the device. Now I I'm I'm I'm have a uh intuition that the source material for the device probably came from that facility, but I think the device itself may differ from the device that was delivered just because it doesn't make a lot of um you know strategically it's kind of foolish to have a public contract for a large bulk of these type of devices that you're going to use to assassinate a public figure. You it would it would put you under a microscope that it's public data. Anyone could be able to find it. So, while I think that the source material probably came from the same facility, I think the device itself differed from the device that was delivered. But on that same note, it does show you that the world is changing. Everything is getting miniaturized. And the idea of having a a microshaped charge that you use for anti-personal, you know, uh device is uh it's being not just kicked around that is actively pursued that they're building these things. And and if you look at the data on microshaped charges, like particularly that size, the 10 mm by 15 millimeter, it's the most studied uh size of the shape charges right now. They're trying to perfect these super small shaped charges because drone warfare has taken over kind of the uh the landscape of of fighting. Everything is miniaturaturized and everything's at smaller scale and much lighter, quicker to deploy and remote. So all the things that we would need for this sort of device to work very very small size remote detonation um they're they're all you know there's billions of dollars being poured into development of these things and you know it's that's what makes the feasibility of it uh not just possible but likely because they're being deployed. It's not it's something that is being used daily in battlefields of Ukraine and other places. So it's not you know science fiction.

>> Yeah. No. And and and very likely getting better and better and better as the years go by. So one of the you know the guy talking about his name is Matt Tardio talking about oh well these have been been around since the 1800s. It's like let's not pretend that weapons development and and these things getting cleaner and cleaner and smaller and smaller as you're suggesting isn't happening right.

Um, with regard to one of the things that I have trouble squaring this with, especially with regard to the exploding mic theory or just like kind of the overall assassination of Charlie Kirk, is I feel like the more people that are involved, like it if it involved, you know, planning at Fort Wuka and it involved the manufacturing of the device at a at a plant in Tennessee and it involved multiple people on the ground that day, it seems more unlikely to me like that. I don't know if you that's just like like I don't know I don't know if it's common sense or just it's just uh it it causes me to remain skeptical. Um with regard to your argument here, how do you see that all fitting in? Like do you see this being like maybe a couple isolated actors or do you see this maybe like maybe nobody on the ground knew? Do you think it was a larger thing? How do you see that that aspect of of this?

So, the only things we have to reconcile for is that someone showed up and and and fired a shot that was perfectly timed with the detonation. So, we at least have one party involved that had pre-knowledge of it. Um, someone had to obviously uh doctor the microphone and swap it. Um, but we know from experience that that could have happened years in advance. Uh, this microphone at a airport or anywhere uh could have been swapped and it would have been still fully functional. Nobody would have would have known or realized it. It could be mounted in the same way they mounted it, you know, for the last four or five events and it would still be effective. Um, so, you know, the George Zen is another thing that's kind of weird. Like, he had to have at least some sort of I I highly doubt he just decided to show up that day and, you know, pull his pants down and say, "I shot Charlie." He had to have some pre-knowledge of it. Even though I'm sure it's compartmentalized. He didn't understand the full scope of his involvement. Um, and then Tyler, I feel like, was drawn there during the morning. I'm I'm not I haven't seen any evidence that that shows that he was there during the afternoon, but he was definitely there during the morning. They have his car, they have his cell phone data, they have, you know, videos of and his other outfit, his shorts and everything. So, you know, there's obviously enough parties to draw these cast of characters together. Um, to play their part. Um, but outside of that, I think you nailed it. The less people involved, the better. So, as far as like a larger conspiracy of the whole, you know, organization, I think it's unlikely. Um, more than likely any involvement that people had, it was a certain layer of deceit that was uh involved with it. Also, that they were thought they were involved in something, but they didn't fully understand what it was or they were lied to about the scope or the the trajectory of the event and they thought they were participating in something and when it unfolded it was something completely different. At that point, they're kind of in too deep and uh they're implicated and they can't really talk about it, you know. So, um they would just leave them acting weird and and being very defensive about it, but not really having any good positions to explain their actions or what what they were doing or why they did what they did. And I think we see a lot of that. So, I think it's a combination of of people just not understanding exactly what they're being involved in and only a few parties really understanding the scope of the of the event. And outside of that, I don't think there's a lot involved. Like the less people the better. Um so just the people that had to know and had to be um directly involved with the actual you know planning of the device or detonation of the device um the better. Um that's why I was always of the impression that it was an acoustically triggered device because it provides perfect timing and then the only person that you need involved is the person that fires the rifle. He serves two purposes. He he's the basically ties the party into the crime and he also serves as the detonating man and it provides perfect timing and a cover for the crime. So, you know, it's kind of like a three for one without having to involve three different parties to accomplish the same goal. Um, so, you know, the we know at least three people were involved outside of that. It's just pure speculation of who else really knew about what was going to happen.

Yeah, I spoke with uh ex FBI agent now whistleblower Kyle Sarafin and he he talked a lot like he's he's been very good on the pipe bomber case for example and he described kind of exactly what you just mentioned there with regard to compartmentalization and isolation of these different actors and they may not even know what's going on like they'll they'll do this like kind of at the governmental level and they'll they'll silo guys off they'll think you know some some will think it's a training exercise like he actually believes that with regard to the pipe bomber, the individual that you know well he thinks the individual that's that was charged with the crime is a psy with like kind of the the gate and the walk he believes that I believe he might still believe at least this at the time he did when we had this conversation that it might have been just like a training exercise where she was just responsible for going and placing something there and she she didn't think that it was anything nefarious or anything like that which I find very interesting. But it seems to be a common way that these ops, I guess you can say, are carried out. Like not everybody is in the know, which I think is very interesting.

>> Yeah.

>> Um,

>> with regard to, it's funny you mentioned George Zinn as a decoy. I use that term. Andrew Wilson came on my live show. Uh, it just came out recently. Andrew Wilson was actually hired by uh Turning Point USA to help their debate team. So that that's interesting. But in any case, he and I got really hung up on like the semantics of what a decoy is. Like, well, did George Zen like know that he was a decoy? Like, if you're using the word decoy, it would imply that he knew what was going on. What I find interesting about that is I also had Joe Kent here on the show. And one of his main kind of suspicions with regard to this being bigger than just Tyler Robinson or just being bigger than just any single person is that there was a significant amount of online chatter prior to the assassination. So I think that does speak to okay it was obviously more than just one person that might have known. More people knew about this like and I think at this point that's a fact. It is a fact that more people than just Tyler Robinson knew what was going on here. So, with regard to what's going to happen to Tyler Robinson and his conviction and whether or not he receives the death penalty, like I've been saying this all along, we're not getting any justice here if Tyler Robinson is given the death penalty without knowing the whole truth about who all was involved in all of this.

Yeah.

>> Right. Like it it's not justice if Tyler Robinson goes down and and he's basically blamed scapegoated for this assassination of Charlie Kirk.

>> Absolutely. Cuz that that means the people that you know potentially could have uh deceived him into playing his part, they can continue their actions. It'll just be another party that they're deceiving. And you know, so anytime there's a new political opponent, they just need a group of of people, you know, that are foolish enough to get involved in something they don't fully understand, and they become the next psy to the next political assassination. you know, they could they could play this this sort of uh division of philosophies and and political parties as the uh the motive behind killing anybody that stands in the way of of you know the state's you know whatever their desires are basically and that's you know we have to we can look at hindsight and see that Charlie was a roadblock to the you know their operations in Iran which obviously you know have unfolded and have America in a quagmire and Charlie was alive, it would have made a very difficult time for them to explain and continue to garnish support for uh the operation and not have people just um you know hear a voice of logic, especially when beforehand he was so vocal about it. Uh and then we see all the things he warned us about come it come out you know to come to fruition. It it would be really hard for them to deal with that. So, you know, look at motivations as far as like why would the state want to get rid of people? Well, when they have something that could mean trillions of dollars of revenue for certain, you know, corporations and industries and you have a single individual that may be standing in the way of that, that's a lot of motivation. And these people are powerful and they have influence. So, they're the type of people that could bring this sort of sophisticated operation together and um make it happen. And then we see the the pariting of right after the event happens, it was the left killed Charlie Kirk. You know, it was it was a very uh very homogeneous verbiage spread throughout the news and it spread far and wide and there was very little, you know, uh alternative narrative as far as the motivation behind it. And so you add all these things together and it it becomes pretty clear that there was a pretty strong motivation for uh the state to possibly take action against Charlie. So

>> yeah, and let's not pretend that this hasn't happened before throughout human history. I feel like corrupt government actors have killed people for a lot less when it all comes down to it. One of the things also too that I found really interesting, especially in my conversation with Joe Kent, is that the the state government of Israel in particular, they saw this opportunity, this second Trump administration as their only potentially only opportunity to carry out this regime change war in Iran. And then when you go back to the June 2025 time frame of Charlie Kirk actually being that obstacle between what the state government of Israel wanted versus what Charlie wanted or was advising President Trump to do and not not do that, not get involved, not not give into the neocons in our own government and in the in the state government of Israel. Like you see that like oh like they they had this window of when they wanted to accomplish this. There was an individual that was specifically standing in their way who was powerful and influential and proved that he could just flip a US presidential election. And it's like, of course, of course they of course there would be suspicion at least like there would be suspicion at least of of them wanting to remove that obstacle.

Yeah. Right.

>> Yeah.

>> And and then we see their actions afterwards. You know, it's it's been, you know, full court press not only in Iran but Lebanon. It's it's the uh the greater goal of the greater Israel is is in full plan. We see it just rolling out and you know the the last kind of 20 years of American foreign policy if you look at the trajectory of it. It's kind of been following that goal. And so this is just the wrapping up of it. The last few obstacles to get done to really accomplish that greater vision. Uh and like you said, it was their last chance to really put it together. And without that, then the pieces of of of these countries could be put back together by these few powers that were left in the region. And so it was very important for them to destabilize them to the point where they wouldn't be able to go and kind of help rebuild the the nations that they've already destabilized through the last 20 years. Like they had to finish the job quickly.

Mhm. I want to get back to a note that I took when you were talking through one of this as far as the like and this this kind of speaks to who was involved and and how this played out in the moment, but with regard to the detonation. I've heard you say that you actually don't think it was an individual that that detonated the device um that detonated the device. Um elaborate on that. What do you think happened there?

So the the not only was the device a perfect target of opportunity, but it provided a platform for which they could use a uh acoustic trigger. So using the microphone that's already on the micro the the microphone obviously and the chipset that was unique to that model of microphone they could basically load a custom firmware into the microphone and have it when it it detected this frequency from the mock cone which is a very unique frequency is a very high amplitude. So it's the very low likelihood they would be detonated you know by uh just normal use. Um they could use that to have that that chip offset and send a signal to a secondary device which would could serve as a detonation. And you know this this wouldn't require any modification outside of just software changes to the microphone and they could just you know solder in the detonation to the outputs that are already on there. So it's a very simple modification and the the window between when the mock cone arrives and when this low frequency detonation is uh picked up from all the cameras around it. Um but particularly the UVU camera because it's uncompressed audio. So it has a very high resolution. It's right in the the latency you would expect for this processor. So, not only does it does the the technical ability um is is there, but the actual event itself is within the window of expected latency that it would have from detecting the mock cone to actually being able to detonate the device. So, you know, we have tangibles that could kind of line up with the the thesis that it was the actual acoustic uh trigger was the mock cone passing by. And it adds another uh you know, the believability of the event becomes even stronger because it's perfectly timed and you don't have to worry about a human factor being a few milliseconds late. Um, and I think that from the Butler PA event, they had to realize that the audio is a very powerful thing. The the cell phone cameras are everywhere. The the audio is getting better and better on these cameras. Um so it would be a very powerful forensic tool for normal people to go and be able to get access to to really hone in on on all the details of the event. So it had to be pretty accurate. Otherwise, it would be very easy for people to pick it apart and they would be able to identify that there was only a frequency that came from the tent or there wasn't a mock cone or the bullet didn't come from the area they said it would. And um, we get consistency, but it's very consistent with it coming from the general area that the official narrative says the shot came from. The only inconsistency is that it's not a uh uh it should be a two audio event where we have the mock cone and the muscle blast and that should be it. But it's actually a three audio event where we have the mock cone, a detonation frequency that originates from underneath the tent and then the muscle blast. So, we have to account for what caused that frequency that originates from the tent. And uh I think that the the microphone um theory is is the only one that really accounts for that and takes in account all the angles. It doesn't just pick one or other. Every angle is consistently picking up these frequencies. So,

>> well, and I think that is something very important that I think we need to we need to talk about here. So, with regard to your audio analysis, you've identified three frequencies. Is am I saying that?

>> Yeah. Correctly.

>> Yeah. And these these are the the highest energy frequencies. There's other frequencies that are picked up, but they're they're not as energetic. These are very high energetic frequencies that are hard to explain by any other phenomenon. Right.

>> And and if it's just a gunshot, then what you just said there is we'd only have two,

>> right? Yeah.

>> And what would those two be?

>> The projectile supersonic projectile creates a mock cone off the tip of it. So that is a frequency that's actually moving across the crowd. So, in layman's terms, that would be just a bullet fired from a gun.

>> The bullet that when they when they the it's the whipping sound, the supersonic, you know, um kind of sonic boom off the tip of the of the projectile. Okay. And then then we have the arrival of the muzzle blast, which is the basically the sound energy from the the u the propellant that was used to fire the bullet that comes out of the tip of the you there, John? You froze on me a little bit. There we go. We're back. Um, so there's a separation between those two. Um, the variable that we can really nail down is the speed of sound. We know the altitude, we know the temperature, the humidity. We know exactly what the speed of sound was during that event. The variable that we don't know is how fast the projectile was. Like we don't even if we do the exact brand of uh bullet that was fired. Depending on what rifle fired it, they're going to have slightly different speeds. Um so we can we can only infer what the speed of the bullet was, but we know the speed of sound. Um, and so that's how we're able to calculate the distance of the projectile from when the mock cone passes by each camera to how long it takes the muzzle blast to follow it. It gives you an idea of the distance um from the the actual position of each camera. And so when you get multiple cameras together, it gives you ability to really triangulate where that general area of that sound traveled. Uh because you know it's going to arrive at cameras that are closer to the the shot first and then the cameras that are further away it's going to be delayed. And so when you sync all those together um it's really easy to get a really good map of kind of how the frequencies rained over the crowd during that day. And that's why it's important not just to use one audio source or two audio sources. You really have to take them all into account because they're all going to provide key data for you to really get a fuller picture of like the acoustic uh effects of the event.

>> Okay. So, your three high energy audio events would be the supersonic projectile, the first one. The second one would be the muzzle blast and then you have identified a third high energy event which would have been the explosion.

>> Yeah, the detonation. And that one, that one is centered with all the angles. They're within their agreeance within three meters of each other that it it it originates from underneath the tent. And it happens in between the mock cone and the muzzle blast. So it's that's why I was saying the the the delta time between when the muzzle blast passes to when that detonation frequency happens is within the the latency of the chipset that's in the microphone to be able to set the detonation off. So it gives it it makes it where it's not just a theoretical application. It it's the the feasibility of it is reflected in the delay of the uh the detonation.

>> Okay. So, it's important to say then though that if we're talking about it in order, we would have the supersonic projectile, the explosion, the detonation, and then the then we have the muzzle blast.

>> Yes. Exactly.

>> Huh. Okay. That leads me to the next question then. Then if if the if the projectile or if the bullet did not strike Charlie, what happened to it? Like where where like this and this is

>> you know and you and I'll just clarify this actually no you you go you clarify it but explain where as far as this high energy event we talked about you tal you mentioned the speed of sound where would the shot have come from and then where did it go?

>> Um so from all the angles because because we can really pin down the speed of the sound. So that's this is the less speculative side of the audio analysis is where the shot came from. It it came from 137 me. Hang on, John. So you're breaking up a little bit. We'll get him back here in a sec. But what what he was saying is ultimately we were talking about the distance of of where this shot came from. So, we'll wait for him to recover here. I see you guys in the chat. I know the last time you were worried about him. Last time you

Were worried about him with regard to why he might have froze out. Let's give him a sec to come back on here.

"Am I back?"

"There he is."

"Yep, you're back. You're back. So, where you were is you were talking about just distance."

"Yeah. So, we we we can really pin down the distance of the where the shot came from because we know the speed of sound. So, it came from an elevated position that was within the area that the official narrative say that says the shot comes from, if not just a little bit further away. Um, so the um the more difficult thing to really hone in on is the uh where the bullet ends up at. We know the general path because the mock cone is is kind of the audio from it is loudest within like 30 meters of the tip of the bullet. So we can kind of map it as it passes each camera, but it's moving at such a speed that, you know, you're you're getting millisecond differences between each camera angle. Um, and then what we can do is look at the um the levels. So obviously the cameras that are closer to the the mock cone are going to pick up higher frequencies from it. The the the rise times be higher and the general peaks will be much higher than the cameras that are further away from it. And that kind of shows us that the bullet crossed over to the right side of Charlie uh more than the left side because the the camera angles on the left side, the amplitude wasn't as high and the two camera angles that were uh directly to Charlie's right side pick up the highest frequencies of it."

"Charlie Charlie's right side as him facing us or or us facing?"

"That basically the way Charlie's position his his right side. So, you know, it's kind of where Brian Harpool was standing and then um my initial impression was that the bullet probably went over the over the crowd, over the breezeway where they had it taped off where there's no crowds above Charlie, right? The walkway above them had nobody on it other than a few officers standing there kind of watching. So, you know, initially I was like, well, that would be a good place to kind of send a bullet, but we would see that that frequency wouldn't be as loud as it was to those people that were directly to Charlie's right hand side. It shows you that it was at a downward trajectory. It was it was it passed between them and Charlie, basically, because the loudest frequency is a person that's almost against the wall. He's almost directly to Charlie's side, almost behind his shoulder. Um, and that camera also captures a really strange frequency that I u I discovered from uh a YouTuber Lookout for Charlie. He does like acoustic analysis of different things. That's kind of like his his channel theme and he did it in October where he discovered this weird frequency. It's like a whistle that happens right as that mock cone passes by right after it and it sustains for a little while and it's very steady and then it just goes away. and I couldn't really explain it. Um, but it sounded familiar to me. Um, so I was just kind of looking around um trying to get a idea of kind of to explain the cavitation of the uh impact of a 30 caliber round and I found a bullet uh a YouTube video that the guy captured this frequency when he was shooting ballistic gel with a 30 caliber air rifle. And because the air rifle's quiet, it doesn't have the black powder to it. You could hear it really well. So, I was like, "Well, that's weird. Let me run analysis on it and see what frequency that is because it sounds a lot like the frequency that I heard from this Lookout for Charlie video that he did um in October." Um, and it was, you know, within like 5% of each other, really, really tight. And the duration was almost exactly the same, which really caught my attention because, you know, the frequencies being really close like raised my eyebrows, but the fact that they lasted for almost the same amount of time as each other. And there was multiple strikes in this video. So then I just started scouring the internet for every 30 caliber uh ballistic gel impact I could find. And I I still have yet to find one that doesn't didn't record this frequency. if it had audio that wasn't slowed down, that was just the true audio of of the impact, it captured this frequency. So then I was like kind of left with a a a mind melter. I was like, how could that be possible? How how could you The frequencyy's there, the duration's there, even the cavitation afterwards. All the evidence of a a 30 caliber bullet impacting ballistic jail is there, but how does that match with what we've seen? And there was one theory that the um some of the people that proposed that Charlie faked his death were uh kind of uh proposing and I didn't listen to it because it sounded so wild to me. If there was a black van that was parked to Charlie's right and um a person opens the trunk of the van right before the shot and as soon as the shots open he closes it remotely like with the uh the key fob >> and I didn't never pay attention to it and they were claiming that's where the bullet went. They actually had the theory that it went into ballistic jail into that van. They didn't have the frequency or anything. They were just building their story off of it to explain how Charlie faked his death, how the bullet didn't really strike him. Uh, but I went back and looked up videos of it and it matches perfectly with the timing. And then I ran really tight triangulation on it and it triangulates just like with Charlie within 3 meters of that van is where that frequency came from. So, as much as it's like highly speculative because it's just so bizarre, um there's a lot of data to back it up that the bullet actually ended up hitting a ballistic jail block in the back of that van. And if you look in the back of that van, the seats are folded down and they have a bunch of weird like AV equipment stacked in it. Like you can't make sense of what's in the back of it, but there's lots of weird shapes like rectangular and block shapes all around. Um, and so it would be really difficult for anyone to identify something that was in there. And the video from earlier in the day when Charlie arrives, somebody from TPS USA is filming it. And as Charlie gets around the edge of the van, he and the camera kind of comes into view to where they could see the back of the van. The van was open. He takes his thumb and like blocks the van out. And it's just like it was obvious that he was doing it on purpose. It wasn't like he was like a rookie not knowing how to hold the the van and then the uh they close the van quickly. As soon as the van closes, he pulls his thumb away. So, it's like circumstantial uh and highly speculative but really weird when you add all the the all the data together, but you know, to me like where the bullet goes isn't as important as kind of explaining the energies around the event. But when you add all that together, it kind of lends itself to the idea that, you know, there was a a larger conspiracy at play. I don't like it because it involves more characters, right? There's more people to align it. But it does explain where the possible projectile could have gone and we have actual physical, you know, evidence that indicates that it could be a possibility. But I don't like hang my hat on that aspect of it or anything.

So you you what I find interesting is like you don't necessarily like that aspect of of >>

"I don't like it because it involves so many extra people. Like it seems like there's so much complication to it. But I can't like I didn't want to even mention it until the data was just so overwhelming that I can't it would it would be dishonest of me not to say that that they in in a strong possibility just because there's so much data and the timing of it and the and the um the actions of the people in and around the van were so strange that it's very difficult for me just to write it off."

"Yeah. the the data and what's actually and what's actually being presented to you is is preventing you from peeling yourself away from. It's interesting. It almost seems like you are subject to what the objective truth is and you're not trying to, you know, form your own uh form your own truth here, right? And I think there's a lot of people that, you know, they they think they they see these things, they want to cling to their arguments, they want to they want to be right. I don't know. they want to be on the team and they just refuse to um they refuse to apply that same analysis to to the things that they believe in. So I find that interesting about your argument here. You've also mentioned here as we've been talking that there were certain points where you were where you were kind of doubting your own your own thesis or your own argument here. And I think that that's I mean I think that that shows that exemplifies humility for sure which honestly I think it makes it makes me trust you more. It makes everybody I think trust you more. It's like you you just I think that is a telltale sign that you don't necessarily care if you're right. Like you're just you're you're just pursuing the truth."

"Yeah. I just want everything to line up. Like I like consistency. Like I like that in people around me. I like that in philosophy. I like that in and spiritual uh you know uh approach to life. I like consistency because it it makes life predictable and to me that that that that brings me reassurance. I don't like it when I I can't understand someone or or understand their motivations. It's just the the wild card of that makes it very difficult for me to kind of process life. So I look for consistency in everything and I don't have any dogma attached to it. Like I don't want to be the person that's right. I just want I want to reveal the truth. I feel like it's a it's our most powerful tool. It's a gift from God for us to recognize it and to share it and uh we should pursue it whenever we can. And so that's that's just been my approach."

"Why do you feel like this has compelled you to to kind of keep pushing on this? I mean, obviously there's there's there's risk of course like being in the media space and and you know, putting yourself out there for for criticism and attacks. I mean, and sometimes those attacks go beyond verbal. Um, I know you mentioned uh on trigger smart. Um, I like Matt that that you live in the middle of nowhere and if anybody came, you know, kind of around, it's it's not a safe it's not a good or a safe place to do that, right?"

"It's not not a safe place to trespass."

"Um, what kind of powers you to to work through that? Like like I guess what's your why as it comes down to to all of this?"

"To me, it it really changed the the spiritual trajectory of my life. Like, I've always been like a godly person and believe, but this really exposed the evil of the world to me and the the power and the reach it has. And as a father, I I see, you know, Charlie's fatherless children. And I I see his organization that he was built for building for good, leaving a legacy. He was he was bearing good fruit and evil snatched that away. And it's just something that I feel like that we all must take that that that battle on when we're faced with it. You just have to put the armor of God on and and abandon fear. And I would rather die a martyr than to die a coward and and and you know let fear take over my motivations and my actions. Um it it's we're all have a stake in this. Everyone's affected by this. You know, it's the the world has reached a point where it it's a breaking point between the balance and good and evil. You know, if we allow those those scales to tip too far, I fear like that we won't be able to to tip them back. That morality will be lost. And you know, we'll we'll be a lost world and it'll be fully fallen. It's already a fallen world. the death the the world's already full of death, but we have a a beautiful ability to transcend that and live a spiritual life. And I feel like we're at we're at the point where we may even lose that if we don't start to take a stand and really call out evil and name the evildoers and and you know uh draw a line in the sand and and and put ourselves out there willing to to be a martyr. You know, we look at the our best examples of how to live godly lives are people that have believed in something and regardless of how much punishment that they faced, they they steadfast and and they held to their truth. And I think that's an example that we all must follow and regardless of of the of the consequences. We just have to hold to our truth and and uh let our hearts lead us and and and temper our minds to to be able to to put fear to the side. And that's kind of been my motivation of it. And you know, I feel like that I've been rewarded for that. I' I've been blessed with, you know, a lot of um of good grace. and it far outweighs is any negative consequences that could come from it. And you know, I hope that it could motivate others to take the similar stands. You know, I look at the Joe K of the world and people like that like it's it takes people of good and moral character to stand up and and make a sacrifice to really make a change in the world. And I think it's a it's something that we all share and we all can play a part in it. and whatever we see, we just have to call it out and take a stand against it and and it'll make a difference. We'll see the tide turn when we start to do that."

"Very well said. And then with regard to that tide turning, I mean, this is where I consider all of our responsibility like like you know, you see a lot of, you know, the black pillars are almost like the giving up on, you know, us fighting for a a moral government or a moral nation. And I I think that that's a mistake. I think I think it takes us stepping up. Like it takes us stepping up and and and pursuing the truth and saying what we believe to be true and and not backing down, not allowing the evil or the corruption to win out. Like we can we can turn the tide. And I think that it just takes more and more good people to unite and do it. So I mean I love what you just said there. That was very powerful and that was very good. H how do you respond to like this is a fight against good and evil? H how do you respond to the people that would say that you are a cause of division, chaos, and evil because of because of this because of these alternative theories that you're pursuing? Like what what would you say back to to those critics, I guess you could say."

"And they would be completely right if I if I was approaching this through a selfish means or I was trying to, you know, gain notoriety to it. It would absolutely be, you know, as soon as you start to act in your own self-interest, like it can easily slide into the the territory of of of being evil and serving a darker purpose. And I think that's where you just have to make the distinction where you when you take action um it has to be for good fruits for the the betterment of the people around you regardless of what they feel about you or what their their you know uh alignments are in the world. You have to look at them with love and admiration. You have to learn to love your enemy. Love the people that cast you out and and treat them as good as you would family. And when you take that approach, then you know, regardless of of of the negativity that's thrown your way, it's very easy to continue to move forward because you you'll see your fruits. You know, even in the in the people that that cast stones at you. Um they'll still serve the purpose, the greater purpose that that you're attempting to uh accomplish."

"So, it's it's it's it's >>"

"It's it's like moving with the winds of God. Like, it's a very mysterious way. you don't really understand what direction they're blowing, but you can feel the momentum of it. And you just have to follow your heart and continue, you know, to kind of not allow your ego and your mind to to move you and just, you know, move where it feels good and where you see it benefiting people and everything else kind of works out. You can't you're not the planner of of the world and the events. You have to kind of relinquish that power and just go with with what you're guided to do. And you'll see the signs like it it becomes obvious once you start to move like that. It becomes very easy like uh to just go with that that prevailing wind of of godliness. You just have to give up your grip on on trying to be the the captain and controlling the direction of it. just be willing to to take it as it comes and and and to fall to the calling. You really that's what it what it comes down when you have that calling. I think we all have that feeling where we're we get that gut feeling, the calling to do something or calling something's not right or someone needs help and and there's so much in life that that prevents us from taking that action. And you just have to to stop psyching yourself out and just to take the risk and you know extend a help or take the chance or whatever it may be like you just have to do it because you may not have a second chance to do it. So"

"You mentioned that obviously doing this because you're called to do it. You're called to fight for the truth. You're called to um you know fight for the good and and for a better world. And and you mentioned, you know, especially that being especially for your for your children, um for others, but especially your children with all of the criticism that is levied your way with regard to proposing, you know, this alternate theory and being called all sorts of names and your credibility and your character being called into question, you stand on your work, right? Like you stand on these arguments that you're making. So if you're, you know, these years go by and you look back on your work here, I believe that the answer if I ask you is if I ask you if you'd be proud of it, I think your answer would be yes. But if your kids ask you, dad, like why like why did why were you doing this? Like this is what people are saying about you. What what would your answer be be to them?"

"I'm doing it for them. You know, it's it's you know, I look at the the life that my parents lived and how many, you know, deceitful actions by the people that had power that were self-motivated by greed and how the detrimental effects, how that cascades down and every generation it gets worse. And um you know, at some point you have to realize that you know even the little evil can become a great evil. in in a short matter of time. So, you know, you have to accept the fact that no evil is acceptable. Like even the the little the little evils within, you have to quelch that out. Like you have to get your house in order for you to be able to be, you know, fully embraced by the grace of of of the Almighty. And and that starts from within. And you know that reflects outwardly into the world around you. Once you start to really get your internal house in order, it's very easy for you to start to see the evils of the world because you know you've you've cleaned your own dwelling. So when you see the things that even if it's just a slight, you know, um misguided action by someone, it's very easy for you to identify it. And outside of of just passing judgment on someone just through love try to to correct actions and you know that's that's I'm not trying to you know say that obviously I'm implicate implicating the state being involved but I do that through love because I understand that our society is built on on trust and honor and justice and if we don't ensure that it it maintains like as a pillar of our society then it all crumbles away. And you know, I love the all the the the things that have been made available to me that are were built on the the shoulders of previous generations. And I feel like the only way we can honor that is to not let it just slide through our fingers and take it for granted. Um, and so, you know, being able to to stop that that that course of action from continuing and my my children facing a life that has less liberty and and less, you know, um ability for them to to live a full and you know, free life where they can not be tied to working, you know, their whole life away just to try to make ends meet to to be able to to have enough to raise a family and follow their spiritual, you know, their goals and and to be able to give to each other and not just be in a a state of desperation where it kind of pins everyone against each other. um you know this the things that weigh heavy on me and now I see like young families not being able to to have kids or holding off on having kids just because of economic like you know difficulties. It it it's it breaks my heart like anything that we can do to to like reverse that course to to make it where the the the greatest fruits of your life are are you know spending time with your family and growing a family and being around the people you love. And I feel like the trajectory of our country is just sending us to a point where we're not gonna have any time to do that. Like it's just make it more difficult for us to to do those things. And so, you know, it makes life a prison where we're just working and toiling away, but we're not really getting any true fruits from it. So, you know, that that's that's my biggest motivation. you know, it's not just for me. It's for my kids and next generations and the the next sets of families, you know, trying to figure out a way to undo the wrongs that have got gotten us in the situation we're in where, you know, that's so difficult life right now and it shouldn't be that way."

"Yeah, there's a tendency especially when you start you know publishing on media you start publishing content you know you want to you obvious you want to do good work you want to provide value but there is the temptation and the tendency to you know chase views or grift I guess you can say like there's a there's a word that word is thrown around so much nowadays everybody's a grifter like anybody that doesn't agree with you online like they're a grifter they're they're on to something they're being paid by someone right? Like no one's independent, right? That this is the constant insult that's levied on both sides really. Have there been any moments with regard to your work or the Charlie Kirk investigation that you kind of feel like maybe you you um went for views or attention? Like are there any moments that you regret that you'd want to take back as far as your investigation goes? Is there is there any aspect of that or do you feel like you have been pretty pretty rock solid and and and pretty straight lined as far as your your work goes?"

"No, I I question everything that I do with it. Like I question why like sometimes I wish someone else would have just taken up the the the goal, you know what I mean?"

"Somebody else could have just Yeah. that I could just like birthe the idea and someone else could have have taken with it. But it that's just haven't I haven't felt like anybody has approached it with the sort of full picture of understanding and for whatever reason I've just been gifted with the unique qualifications to kind of you know do it that the I've been pursuing things in and around all the key details about the event. So, you know, I I but yeah, that does weigh heavy on me. Absolutely. I I don't like to think that I'm using this investigation as like personal gain or anything like that. And I've absolutely have had personal gain from it, but it's that hasn't been my my intention. Um and every post I I question it before I post. I'm like, is this like actually adding and taking it forward? Is this a, you know, every time I reply to someone that tries to debunk it, I'm like, is this actually like is this is this a selfish act and I'm trying to protect my ego or is this actually helping to inform people to to help kind of correct any misconceptions around it? So, yeah, it ways I think it would be misguided for me to say like I would been all on the up and up from the very beginning. Like that wouldn't be honest. like it it's it's a constant battle being a person in this world, you know, that it's like living outwardly through these digital devices. It's a very strange thing to me. Um it's very easy for you to lose yourself in it. So yeah, it's a constant I'm constantly trying to check myself to ensure that you know that my intent is to to do good and not just to benefit myself or to make my ego feel better and especially to prove someone wrong. That's the biggest thing like to do something just to prove someone wrong is like the silliest thing to do. Like it's always about, you know, guiding people closer to the truth. Like that's that's kind of like my prevailing goal whenever I do anything. Like is this going to help someone get closer to understanding the truth and then if it passes that litmitness test then then I'll do it then I'll post it. Yeah."

"Yeah. No, that that's a really good litmus test. And you know, I question myself and I'm not I'm not going to sit here and say that I've been perfect. I absolutely not. Like I'll engage in a lot of like the political cultural debates and arguments and and and definitely not be the best version of myself at times cuz I'll let emotions take over or I'll, you know, I'll get angry or I'll want to get like real snappy especially especially on X. That's where I feel like it comes out the most."

"Yeah. It's very it's cuz it it's the culture on there. You know what I mean? Like whether you whether you like it or not, you adapt to the culture that you're in. And X X is a very disrespectful culture. It's just it's just kind of the way. And so, you know, you end up reflecting that out. But yeah, I constantly check myself and cringe when I go back and look some of the comments I had. I'm like, I should have just thought that one through a little bit better. Like, but I always try to be respectful and nice. I understand like everyone's has their own opinion. Like, I don't expect everyone to think the same way as me. Like I don't I don't get upset when someone, you know, thinks something that I'm I'm saying or proposing is is bizarre or not not wellounded. Like that's to be expected. That's just, you know, different strokes for different folks. But I always try to be respectful for other people and not belittle anyone. I think that's very that's a small thing to do to belittle someone on the internet. It's a very a weak person type of move. Um, you know, if if you're going to try to correct someone, at least have it be constructive. I feel I feel like you're you're you're striking a curve a cord in me. I feel like I got to go delete some some post."

"It's okay. They're they're lessons for you though. You can go back and look at them. It's a lesson to be had. You know, there's a reason it happened. And you can it's it's not about what happened in the past. It's about what you allow to happen in the future. And you know, sometimes keeping those those shortcomings out there to remind you that you can do better in the future, they they serve a goal. G get to confession and then be better on X as we go forward."

"Exactly."

"Resolve to be better on X."

"Father, forgive me. He actually came up to me. Uh my uh my spiritual father, Father Alexis, he came up to me and he was like, "So, I heard you've been busy." I'm like, "Father, please forgive me."

"Okay. Yeah. Just let me just wash whatever I've done. That's That's hilarious. No, but like I think what there's a story about a US president. I forget which one it was, but he was known for like writing harsh letters to people around him or his opponents or whatever that he they basically just found like he would write them and then never send them. I feel like that happens to me a lot on X where like I'll type something and then I just like delete it right away. But like I get it out and then I just delete it."

"Yeah. Sometimes, you know, that it's like exercising a demon. You know what I mean? you get that that wickedness out of you and to just keep it within yourself. It it's not hurting anyone, but at least you're you're you're reminding yourself that you have the capability of doing that. So, it helps keep you in check. Absolutely."

"Yeah. One of the things that cracks me up about Candace all the time is she's always like, I was talking to my priest and I was I told him that I would calm down or I told him that I would chill. Like, it's pretty funny. Um, one of the things I want you to do and then we're at the two hour mark. So, I've got really two questions that I want to finish with for you. Um, and then do you have time to get to some of the comments?"

"Oh, absolutely."

"That were left. Okay, cool."

"Um, >>"

"What I want you to do is kind of steelman your own case here. Like, what do you consider like what are the things that as far as your thesis or your argument goes? Like cause you to question or second guess yourself the most? like what do you consider the kind of the weakest aspect of your argument that constantly caused you to maybe question what you're what you're going for?"

"Well, the um the lack of being able to to the only having acoustic and like a few visual clues to the actual uh fatal injury that you know if we could like had had a glimpse of the wound on his chest or something. the fact that we don't see any wound on his chest. Um, obviously the church there, but you know, um, if we could have just seen a glimpse of it when they carried him away or I would have feel like I wouldn't even pursued the the whole event, they would have just admitted he was shot in the chest and like the shrapnel from the impact caused the neck wound. Like I would have left it there. But it's just something in in my heart of hearts like it's just I can't get past the the u the amount of energy that was displaced in his chest. So, it's like my brain's just constantly racking at trying to figure out another, you know, tangible to to explain why. um you know any explanation of of be the frequency of their of their shirt or you know there has to be a detail that we're missing now that is you know probably pretty obvious that we just haven't discovered yet that that lends itself to to more evidence of the of a chest uh trauma. Um and the neck wound I'm pretty I'm the I'm solid on that. There's so much like the the battery impact is so clean. It's just like the the neck wound has everything that I would want from the chest wound. Like we can see it clearly. I have the actual object that impacted it. It has the the the depth, the speed of it, the the bleeding pattern, you know, all of it matches with the object and you know, we see it fall out to the ground. Like everything I would want from the neck wood I have. So, I'm so solid on that. But there's just so many mysterious things about the chest wound. Just the device itself, it's so it's so unique. You know, there's not a lot of examples of it that I can pull up. So, it leaves a lot of questions for me and questions are like something that that I like explanations. I like to be able to like tie up all the key details of it. And there's definitely it's the hardest part of the event to kind of really hone in on and really explain everything about it. Do you think that uh the photo that Baron Coleman shared on X uh did that give you uh anything as far as uh I guess you would say help with regard to that?"

"Um not really. I've learned that I have to have like two photos of anything to really do a proper analysis on it. Like I've been fooled by so much by one photo and like human perception is a very tricky thing. you can you can see a lot of what you want to see in in a single example, but when you get two examples, it becomes a lot clearer. You can you can build off of that. It's like triangulating your position. It's difficult to triangulate your position just from one reference. It's when you have multiple references, you can get a much better idea where you are. If you can get three, you can tell yourself exactly where you are. And so that same philosophy is kind of what I use like on visual evidence. I want a few examples of it to really um hone in on what I'm looking at and explain what I'm looking at."

"Yeah. So, you don't consider kind of that negative area of like a rectangle shape outline as being anything that is uh that would suggest he had anything strapped on to him or um or anything like that."

"Yeah. And the biggest thing is that I would expect to see something in that area on his shirt. Like if I can see his cross underneath his shirt, then anything that's strapped onto him, I can see also. And we have a pretty good chain of custody of everything that happened to Charlie from when he arrives and gets out of the SUV and goes to the point where he sits down and starts to take questions. And there's just no evidence of anyone ever attaching anything underneath his shirt outside of the microphone, which we have a two angles of of uh there's still photos and then there's a video of them putting the microphone on them. But there's just never anything of them like lifting his shirt up and taping something to his chest or anything like that. So, like I said, I have to have multiple data points for me to really triangulate the truth. Otherwise, it's just u a weird, you know, anomaly. And that's kind of what I would explain it as right now for me."

"Yeah, I've I've seen others kind of make the argument that like, oh, like I I always had the feeling he had something under his shirt. I've kind of been on the opposite side of that. I don't necessarily agree with to me it's like I I've never really seen anything under his shirt like consistent what we were talking about earlier with regard to to body armor."

"So"

"Yeah and that's why I'm certain of it cuz I man I was hunting for any idea that he had body armor. I was looking for any crease I could find. So, I knew the pre-event to him sitting down like every position, every bulge or anything that I could have saw that I would could uh try to think there was a plate armor or body armor, I would have seen it and identified it. And, you know, I had to, contrary to my opinion at the time, I had to conclude that he had nothing but the necklace and the microphone on underneath his shirt that day."

"Yeah. One of the things that you said uh with Matt on trigger smart that really caught my attention was um provide the name of your website and I'll make sure that all your contacts, social media, everything is in the show notes, the the mods have been sharing it here in the chat."

"Follow followtheepicenter.com."

"Follow the epicenter.com, guys. We'll we'll make sure that that >> website is in the show notes and I know the mods will also share it here. um followtheepicenter.com you have said has give me give me the download numbers and what you said that I thought was fairly significant was the VPNs that have been downloading it and where those come from can you"

"Over over 9 terabytes it's probably closer to to 10 terabytes now of of information have been downloaded be it my forensic packages which is like forensic analysis or videos or photos um have been downloaded and you know uh I look at the IPs on there so you can go and and kind of like trace where these IPs come from and I would say the better part of 70% of the IPs that connect to it are through VPNs and these VPNs are are you can trace them they're obviously companies that provide this service and majority of them are foreign intelligence you know through Spain through Greece through uh Switzerland through Sweden And um so you know basically a massive amount of data has been archived off of that website from foreign intelligent agencies using VPNs and we had direct evidence of it. There was that Iranian you know ghost face uh kind of like blacked out and voice changer which explained like the thesis to the tea of what they they discovered what they happened to Charlie. So I think that it's it's been something that foreign intelligence would would look at as pretty highly valuable data to understand the operations of what goes on inside of America. So it would be a tool for them. That's not why I made the website. I made the website as a a backup plan for Tyler Robinson's defense in case they just ignored the data um because I was providing it for them also. So, it's kind of a backup plan. So, they can't say, "Oh, we didn't know about any of this." You know, it's been publicly available. And then, you know, kind of the the third thing it serves for is anyone that just has a curiosity. They can go and and research outside of the scope of X and, you know, these other platforms which are, you know, can be toxic and then highly censored. This is a, you know, a completely private website. So, I can put whatever I want up there. And um I try to make it as open source as possible. I have all my source files, all my source photos, videos, and then any analysis that I run, I provide the the data, the code, the Python code. So the idea is to make it where people can replicate it themselves. They can take the source same source videos, the same source audio that I use, look at my code through and through, see what it was doing, run it themselves and come to the same conclusion or decide if the code was accurate and its approach. So, you know, it's just open sourcing the kind of uh forensic analysis and um the study of the event to allow others to to pick it up like like I don't want to be the ambassador of it like this is something that affects affects everybody. So someone with more ability than than me wants to pick it up and take it on, it's all there for them and they can run with it as far as they can. I mean that's a bombshell, dude. I mean, you know what I mean? Like the arguments like, "Oh, this is just some fringe theory that these conspiracy theorists believe online." like that amount of information download with with the different foreign entities that are that are that are taking this information. I mean that that's that's a hell of a thing. That's not nothing, right?"

"There are obviously people that are interested and that care about what you've published and and your work and what you've had to say."

"Yeah. And I I think it's an approach that we all can take. you know it's it's looking at the tools they use to deceive us we can use to spread the truth so we just we just have to you know it's a philosophy that I take like uh the tools that evil uses aren't evil in themselves it's it's their motivation and their outcomes that are evil you can use the same approach and do good with it so you know be it through like techniques of propaganda well you can spread lies with propaganda but you I al also use those same exact techniques to spread the truth. And so I've kind of uh taken that that philosophy and uh approach and used it to kind of, you know, tried to spread this information out and it's been pretty effective for for the most part. Um, you know, I feel like it's it's it's taken a life of its own now. So I could probably leave it alone and not do anything more and it would live on by itself. So"

"Yeah."

"That was the kind of the goal that it would become a thing in itself. You know, the that was the the truth is like a lion they say. Yeah. So that's I've just wanted to unleash the line and allow it to to run its course."

"Yeah. And this is something you've been doing diligent work on, very detailed work. I I argue honest work for for a long time. And for you to now be getting, you know, the attention and the well-deserved credit for this, man, like it's it's welld deserved. So, congratulations. I mean, when when the top dog gives you gives you the credit when Candace Owens shouts you out for like she did last week, I mean, that's that's good stuff and welld deserved. So, and I'm I'm happy for you, man. I mean, I I say this genuinely. I I don't think it could happen to uh to a better person. I mean, I I mean that genuinely like every every time I've seen you talk, the different interviews that you've given, um, you know, some of the conversations that we've had, which haven't been significant, but, you know, I've I feel like I've seen enough of you to kind of understand your character and what you're about. You seem like you're gen like generally just kind of a nononsense, pretty detail oriented, faithfilled, spiritual guy that that really just wants to contribute, do work that's valuable and and and help find the truth. Um, so I'm happy for you, man, and congratulations for for the well-deserved credit for everything that you've done."

"Well, thank you."

"I don't know that there would be someone better for it, though. I think you're in your bag right now."

"Yeah. You know, that's I'm just It's that calling, you know, the you don't always know your purpose in life, but when when something calls to you, you really have to you have to attack it. And, you know, that's been kind of my my philosophy with it. So if I can if I can leave a a better place than what I was brought into, then that's that's good works. That's good fruit and that's that keeps me going. So"

"Yeah. Well, we need we need way more people like you, John. That is 100% the case. All right, man. You got some time to get to the comments here? We'll finish up with them."

"Yeah, let's do it."

"Cool. Uh, a few new member shoutouts here."

You guys. We got three new members. Anna Escobar, show. Thanks for, uh, thanks for becoming a member of the Zach Kaso. Seen a lot of your work on X.

>> Yeah, she does excellent work.

>> Yep. Uh, mom of Ari and then, uh, Republic T-room. Thank you guys for becoming members. Philippians 2:3-4. I love this verse since it references being on time. Shows people that one's values and respects their time. Right, Zach?

Mark. Yeah, I was telling John about ZST before we came on. Um, you know, just kind of the the operations of of when I try to hit on the show. I'll look, I mean, look, you guys all know I try to align myself with the gospel. So, I'll read Philippians 2:3-4 and maybe that'll, uh, provide me with the grace I need to be better about being on time and operating at, uh, uh, non-ZST time. John, I, here I got a question for you. So, normally I'll finish my live show with scripture every day. Do you have a favorite scripture verse that that's like your go-to? What do you,

>> No, I'm really at least.

>> I'm, I'm really, uh, it's it depends on the situation. Like every day there's something else that that that speaks to me. So, you know, I usually I I apply it to my certain scenario. I don't have, I find that every line of scripture has its season and it comes to you when when you need it. So I'm very interested in what you have today. It may be just what I need to hear.

>> I don't have anything planned for today.

>> Norm, normally when I have a guest, I have them share their favorite one. I have a, I'll give you some time to think about what has come to you and then maybe you can share it at the very end. That's what we'll, uh, does that sound fair?

>> Yeah. That doesn't put you on the spot too too much to come up with one right this second.

>> Yeah.

>> So, think about one that's speaking to you right now, at this at this time in your life and and we'll, uh, we'll take a look at that at the end. Um, and then thank you, Straws Man. I'll check out Philippians 2:3-4. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Don't call me out in front of my guest, guys. Come on. Come on. Electronic bookworm. Good research. This is horrifying, but I appreciate the info. I think that one's directed at you, John.

It is horrifi. I mean, horrifying as far as just the different things that were being told and the different narratives that are being spun. I agree with you, but I mean, it's horrifying what happened to Charlie Kirk. And I think finding the the truth is is very important. Um, the cross built. The cross built. Is that referring to Charlie's necklace cross? I'm not 100% sure what that comment is referring to, but but thank you for, uh, the comment and for being a member. Charlie Kirk wore white shirt, men in maroon. Erica knew it all, but said he didn't text, but said he didn't text that they were going to kill me. No plans for next event. Mike broke inside job. Um, what are your thoughts on that, John?

>> I don't know. The the whole like the, um, it was weird the white shirt and then like he never wore a white shirt before and then like the whole, I don't know the,

>> Would him wearing a white shirt contribute to your theory at all? Like, would c certain things not show up with an exploding mic if you,

>> It makes it, it makes everything worse. Like it makes it harder. Yeah, it makes it way harder. That's why I just like it didn't make much sense to me. Um,

>> And it's a weird shirt, too. It's a polyester jersey knit. Just a really strange composition of shirt. Um, yeah. And then like all the actions afterwards, like the whole, that's why I try not to get into the whole, uh, personal narrative of it of of like, you know, the people in and around Charlie because it's really just a, you can apply a lot to it when it could just be chance and circumstance. Yeah.

>> Yeah. What about the Met and Maroon? I think that kind of speaks to like the larger, like the larger conspiracy and how many people were involved, like hundreds there that day were were there in, you know, plain plain clothes.

>> Well, I, I'm color blind, so it's real. I have to take people to work. Maroon could be brown, it could be dark green. I'm like, I'm not sure. People are just telling me this is maroon. I'm not 100% sure. So it's, uh, you know, perspective is a weird thing. So, yeah, it's, it's hard. It, it's something that that never really struck me as as that significant though. It could be super significant. I don't know. But, you know, we all have our gifts of what we can see and what we can't see. And that's not one I'm gifted with. So,

>> That explains that. What about regard to like an, like an inside job? Is that something that you haven't really decided to speculate in at all?

Yeah, because it just gets difficult and I, I certainly don't want to accuse anyone of something that they weren't involved in. I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't enjoy that myself. That would be heartbreaking for me. So, I, I try my best not to unnecessarily, um, bring someone into the fold of something just to try to explain something I can't explain. So I just, I really tried to stick to the details of the, uh, the tangible effects and the physics behind what caused them and and leave the like the people, um, aspect to other other parties.

>> Yep. Yep. Fair enough. So Mystic Armad here, she brought in some some questions from the chat that people had that, uh, that were good ones. So would the PETN be combined with the C4? Mark?

>> They use it as a detonator for C4 sometimes, but I really don't think C4 was involved. It wouldn't just be, it wouldn't be a very good, uh, application for it.

>> Okay. Oh, if the cross is built like Mike with shape charge, the charge could cause wound and the cross would do what you expect to raise, uh, to raise the collar.

>> Thank you, Crisis King. Um, kind of like that guy explained, the this the shape charge has to have a certain amount of distance from, um, its target and it, it's dependent on the, the angle of the cone and the diameter of the charge. And so the necklace is just, it's almost impossible to build a shape charge that could fit inside that necklace. So the the whole thesis of the, uh, the cross necklace holding a shape charge is is not very plausible. It would be completely novel thing that I've never seen in documentation or literature. It would be something completely like one-off that that we've never seen before. And I, I tend to kind of like steer away from those sort of things just because you, it could be anything at that point. You're just kind of, you, you're in sci-fi realm. So,

>> Um, and like I said before, like it's an attempt to explain how the the cross lifts the shirt and makes the neck wound. It can't do both at the same time. So, it has to be one or the other.

>> Interesting. The cross cannot cause the shirt movement and the neck wound at the same time. Wh, why, why is that the case? Because it, the idea is that the cross lifted the shirt collar up. But if it's up here lifting the shirt collar up and the neck ones happened at the exact same time, it can't do the both of those sort of things at the same time, right? The energy that caused it to raise up was already be displaced. So it wouldn't have leftover energy to cause the neck wound. And most importantly, the neck wound is clearly a medium velocity blunt impact. So the the cross could do that if the cross was what impacted the neck, but then it couldn't also lift the shirt collar up. So it's kind of like you, you can't, um, explain all the effects that we saw in that area by a single cross. It would need the, it would need to be like multiple objects to be able to be able to explain it.

>> Okay. What is the long whitish wire hanging from Charlie Kirk when the team carries him to the vehicle?

>> That's his necklace.

>> His necklace is hanging off of it.

>> Yeah. Um, essentially when the necklace was was broke mid-link, so you know, I would imagine that the links splattered out and so the chain couldn't slide out of the pendant. So when the chain was sent in the trajectory up and around his head, it pulls the slack out and the chain stretches out to its full length until the cross is caught underneath his shirt. And so the, you know, the broken lengths of the chain capture the cross pendant where it can't slide out of the clasp anymore. And then the length of the chain is left hanging from his body and the cross is stuck underneath his shirt. So that's why the chain stays attached all the way to the, um, the SUV and is found in the floor, supposedly found in the floor of the SUV later.

>> Um, when they cut the shirt off of him. The cross obviously is is, you know, left to to, uh, escape the the trappings of the fabric and then it can just land on the ground where they find it later. But that's all speculatively. But, but we do know is hanging from his body when they carry him to the SUV. What happens in the SUV? We can't say, but,

>> Oh, and then and then it follows that the that the cross was found in the SUV, you know, as long as we're being told the truth.

>> Yeah. The laid laid over, uh, a laptop bag that was in between the captain chairs. So, you know, that kind of aligns with the explanation that they gave.

>> One of the the follow-up questions that I have for you there is, okay, like, uh, cross necklace hanging off of him. Um, we have, you published a photo that I thought was very helpful and informative of those shards, whatever they are, the however we want to describe them. We don't know the exact material or maybe you do, but the shards, you, you recreated those shards on vehicle flooring or vehicle carpet, just that that almost looked extremely consistent with the ones that were found. So would that be like the shirt, like those fell out of Charlie's shirt? Like the necklace fell off, the the shards fell out. Like, is that where those came from too?

>> Yeah, exactly. Just like the cross was trapped underneath his shirt. the um, that's a chemically tempered glass and when it breaks, it has little jagged like almost fish hooks on the end and so, you know, they get embedded into the jersey knit and so the shirt was stretched when they get kind of tossed out and then it shrinks back and so it traps them into there. Um, and it's something that I experienced with doing my experiments with it. It was almost impossible to get off that automobile carpet. It was, I had to like take a brush and turn it upside down and brush it off of it. So it just adheres itself to any sort of like loop fabric that has voids.

>> Um, so that that glass was just trapped in the shirt. And the way they lifted him and carried him to the SUV, the shirt was kind of bunched up. So it would just kind of like trap it in there. And then once they get him to the SUV and they do, depending on whose story you you believe, when they start to, you know, medically intervene and remove his shirt, all that glass is going to start to come loose. And that's where we see it. The majority of the glass is in between the captain's seats where they had his body stretched over. So all that kind of lines up.

>> Mhm.

>> And that's also where they found the necklace. So again, like the the items that were trapped underneath the shirt seemed to have come loose and ended up fallen to the floorboard in between the two captain seats where he was stretched across.

>> Yeah. As you say that, because I think it's the Brian Harpole account who says that he cut off Charlie's shirt when they were in the hospital, but it's like those items suggest like if the necklace fell off and there were shards that the shirt could very well have been taken off inside the vehicle.

Yeah, I, I think that that's probably likely. I think the explanation of him hopping on the hospital gurney while they're rolling him in the ER and cutting the shirt off is to try to explain why the shirt didn't arrive with Charlie at the hospital.

>> Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Brian Harpaul just jumps on Charlie's Kirk to cut it off. It's like, yeah.

>> Starts barking orders to the nurses and everything. Yeah, I see that happening. That's probably probably not. I would probably be, you know, pretty, uh,

>> Pretty upset about that if I worked at the hospital.

>> Right? Get off of him, dude.

>> Prof. The professionals are here. Like, you, you've done enough. So,

>> Right, right.

>> He is very informative. Great guest. Yes, he is. That's why he's here. Thank you. Um, always be true. Got here late. We'll watch the replay from the start. Uh, she always be true here is a is a is a regular. Uh, great interview. Glad to see John more and more. Suggestion for today's passage. Okay. Proverbs 11:3-6. All right. But this doesn't let John off the hook though. We'll, we'll, we'll take a look at this one. Proverbs 11. Proverbs is right after Psalms. Yep. All right. Proverbs 11:3-6. The honesty of the upright guides them. The faithless are ruined by their duplicity. Wealth is useless on a day of wrath, but justice saves from death. The justice of the honest makes their way straight, but their wickedness the wicked fall. The justice of the upright saves them, but the faithless are caught in their own intrigue. That's good.

>> That's very good.

>> Good. I think that fits very consistently with a lot of what we've talked about here today. Thank you. Always be true. Zack, didn't you do a collab with John and a couple other guys months ago?

Yes, we did. That's the first time that John and I were introduced to each other. Matt McKim from the Black Line Brief, uh, put that together. It's a collab on, I have that video or that show on my channel as well. And Blake Bednars was there too. We go through a lot of these different theories and I thought what was a cool aspect of that is kind of John represented his argument with the exploding road microphone. Blake represented his his argument which he believes is is the necklace. Um, and I thought it was a good and productive conversation and that episode is on the the Black Line Brief channel mainly if you guys want to go check that out too. Um, I like Matt a lot. We got another question here from from in the chat. What are your thoughts on it being faked, but something went wrong? Thank you.

>> I think all my previous objections would still be in play. It's just out of character for Charlie to even entertain, um, something like that. And most importantly, if it did go wrong and Charlie didn't pass, then it, it just absolutely ruins his his reputation, his organization. Like it seems like all risk, no reward in that sort of scenario.

Mhm. Yeah, we, we addressed those different the theories there and I think you did a very good job of that. Um, good will win over evil. I agree. That's what we're promised, right? I don't give a damn. Good to see you here. Uh, New York Post from 9:21-25. Erica Kirk wears Charlie Kirk bloodstained St. Michael pendant that he had on. The Testament of Salmon, Michael gave the seal to command demons and build the temple. Did the New York Post publish that Erica Kirk was had the blood stained St. Michael pendant that he had on?

>> Yeah. And they specifically say that the medics ripped it off of him that they tore it off of him when when, uh, dressing his neck wound, which is an absolute lie. Yeah. We, we saw the necklace removed well before he hits the ground and, uh, the the medics didn't rip it off because we see it dangling from his neck when they carry him to the SUV. So it's completely misrepresentation and most importantly, that's evidence like that should have been, that should have been in an evidence locker. Like that could exonerate Tyler Robinson, but it's used as, you know, emotional fodder for Erica instead. So that's just a freaking lie. Like that's what that is. Like they just published a straight-up lie.

>> Yeah.

>> This comes on the heels of another lie they published just days before with regard to the silent breakup that Charlie Kirk had with Candace Owens that Eric Bowling went on the Patrick B. David show and lied about. The New York Post published a whole article about how all of that happened. And then you have to read the whole thing. at the very bottom, the last sentence of the whole article says, "We reached out to Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kovvette who said they remained friends," but it's like all the way at the bottom. It's like,

>> What's up with that? Who were the source? I want to know who who who who's the source that told the New York Post about this pendant? That that would be really interesting to know.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And of course, they just, they just leave that out, you know, pretty important detail.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, he wasn't even wearing it. Wow. Thanks. Thanks. I don't give a damn. That's good info. Um, there's a wimpiness in the planning of this detailed op. Much of it scripted just to protect the planners. Not genius here as much as cowardice.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. A lot of it seems if you do look at the motivations, it's a lot of selfish actions. I believe there was there was, uh, any large evil that was at play here. It was just self-serving. Yep. Yep. I don't give a damn. Another one here. Proverbs 10:4 honors hard work and truth, not grifting.

Yeah. And I think I think time tells, right? Like I think time, time ultimately tells what bears fruit and what doesn't with regard to to one's work. Imagine I think that says imagine a machine. Imagine that there are people like him and people, Imagine there are people like him and people like Megan Kelly and all the evil people in America. I am surprised. Imagine there are people like him and people like Megan Kelly and all the evil people in America. I'm not, I don't know if I'm following here, um, who the hymn is and and who we're talking about here, but I appreciate you leaving the super chat and engaging with us here. Thank you. Um, if you want to clarify that, then then feel free. Do you think that Charlie Kirk was thinking he could fake his death, but offing him was always the real goal to those who wanted him gone? Was he duped?

I think that we, we've answered this. We've talked about what John and John and I both think about Charlie Kirk faking his death. We don't think that that's something that he would do. That's that's I think where we both stand on that. We've made that clear here at this point. Can John explain how a chest wound from a weaponized microphone could cause enough blood to make it look like a 30-6 shot?

Well, the the entry wound of a 30-off-six would only have the the four splatter, so it wouldn't be a tremendous amount of blood. The exit wound is be what would be expected to have a lot of blood on it and it wouldn't match perfectly. So again, that's kind of like what he was, the question he was asked, like the, the most troublesome thing about the the theory is that the, um, the the lack of the, uh, evidence of the chest wound outside of just the acoustic, um, vibrations from it, the physical reaction and the, the back of the shirt movement and the slight pink, it would, it wouldn't match perfectly with what people would expect from a 30-off-six impact, but I think it would be more plausible than a impact to the neck where you know, it's, it's very unlikely that that wouldn't fully penetrate and leave a horrific, you know, um, hunk of flesh basically missing and, you know, obviously an exit wound that would would leave fluids all over the backdrop and, um, I think a chest impact would be more palatable to to not having a lot of, uh, physical, you know, evidence as far as like fluids and things like that, no exit wound, it would be easier to to understand how that could be possible. So, while it's not perfect, it's a better fit than a neck impact.

>> Yeah. And and and a and a shot to the chest cavity is going to have a higher likelihood of of not having an exit wound. And I think that,

>> The reason for all the blood was obviously because of the neck wound, right?

>> Yeah. But it, it is conceivable as you said, like a shot to the chest wound with no exit wound. You know, I, I would, it seems like I'm not the expert in this, but it seems like that would actually not not produce that much blood when it all comes down to it, relatively speaking.

>> Yeah. Especially out the entry.

>> Yep. Mystic, this collab is fire. Thank you. And then Mystic again. Hi John. Out of pure curiosity, do you have an idea as to approximately how many hours you've invested in researching what happened to Charlie?

>> No. Thousands. Yeah, it's been, I said it, it bothered me spiritually for a long time. There was there was nights where I would just walk up and down the driveway and pray. Um, because I have a 16-year-old son and I could, I could envision him being entrapped in this sort of, you know, thing. So, it's like I had empathies as a parent on both sides. Empathies for for Charlie and his his kids being fatherless and then for Tyler Robinson's parents seeing their their son being, you know, caught up in this sort of event. So, emotionally, it was very troubling for me. And so, I, I spent that instead of allowing it just to torment me, I, I turned it into something positive. And I, I spent those those hours I couldn't sleep very well just doing work. And, uh, so yeah, thousands of hours.

>> We got stay-at-home mom of three, uh, became a member. Thank you. I think it's important for the large creators on this case to post the question on X and tag everyone implicated asking why is the necklace shirt phone in Erica's possession. It's a good question.

I mean, yeah, I mean, you, we'd consider that evidence, right? So, you know, why, why would she be in possession of those things?

>> Do you consider consider those things evidence? All of those things?

>> Absolutely. Yeah. It's, uh, you know, any, especially a, a high-profile figure that you know, his his significant other would would potentially benefit from his passing. Like any normal situation, they would have been a suspect, right? They, there would have been some level of suspicion placed on them. They're not outside of of of, you know, the realm of questioning. Like the widow doesn't get a, a free pass. If anything, like the widow is the first person you clear to ensure that they don't have anything to do with it and to, you know, allow her just to possess potential evidence before it's even examined. It's just bizarre.

>> Correct. Yep. Yep. Agreed. Well said. We are so lucky to have real men whom are super intelligent and talented that are also blessed with being brave enough to plow forward with finding and speaking truths to the great powers. Thank you.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that for that comment. That's very, uh, that compliment. Very much appreciated. And thanks for the super chat. All right, John, take us out with, uh, with the scripture verse that that you that is your go-to for for today or that's been that's been calling you for today.

>> Well, this is something that I posted and it was something that kind of called to me because it, it, it kind of explains the larger larger issues that we deal with. It's, uh, 2 Corinthians 4:18. Therefore, we do not lose heart, even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our own light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. We do not look at things which are seen, but the things which are not seen. For the things that are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

>> I love that. I love that. What, what verse was that in Corinthians?

>> Uh, 2 Corinthians 4:18.

>> Okay. I love it. I feel like that's like a, that's like a St. Paul goat type of, uh, type of type of verse right there.

>> Yeah. I mean, when you're in difficult times, it's just and it's important to remember that, you know, our rewards are not of this world. Our world, our treasures are are found in the next. So,

>> Yeah.

>> Our good works may be punished in this world, but we'll, we'll be rewarded for them in the next. Yep. We got two, two more quick ones here that popped up. What if someone wanted to fake it, not Charlie? So, what if someone else wanted to fake it? I haven't heard that that argument before. I mean, who, who else would fake it? Isn't Charlie the one that that just died? That supposedly? What if,

>> His death, right? It's his death that's being faked. So, so where would Charlie be in that scenario? Unless I had like a, a backup Charlie that could roll out and just be like, "Hey, Charlie. Uh, it's canceled. Stay at home."

>> Well, where, and like, and where is Charlie now? Is he just locked up somewhere?

Yeah, that was that's always my been my biggest like, how would Charlie feel if this was all, like, even if he's on the beach drinking a piña colada, like he can't feel good about it, like,

>> No, and he, I feel like he's wanted to be in the public arena like,

>> I don't know. I don't know. Someone, if someone faked Charlie's death and has him in captivity somewhere, then okay, all right, then I'm wrong. Then, you know, that's, didn't expect it. But oh man, John, have you considered Baron Coleman's electrocution theory in tandem with the exploding mic? Maybe as a detonation mechanism or something?

>> Yeah, I've looked into it. And the SM58 he was using could definitely electrocute you, but it's generally when that happens, it's like a, a generator system or kind of like a, um, a source of electricity which have kind of like been put together for the event. And this was like a, a built-in campus electricity, a, a grounded plug that was like feet behind Charlie. So, it's a really good source of electricity. There's no reason for it to drop a ground and electrocute them. It would be like really bizarre. And then, um, it's not a very good means to detonate a device. Humans don't conduct electricity very well. That's why it's dangerous when you get electrocuted because of the, uh, your body's resistance to the current causes it to create a lot of heat and that's generally like what kills you is is your your blood literally boils. Um, so it's just not a very good application of of the technology of electricity.

>> All right, then last one here guys. Uh, sweet Zack. I'm going to turn this episode into a drinking game. Every time you say with regard to, I'm taking a shot of Jack. All in good fun. Don't attack me, chat. Need regard merch. Okay. Well, do I say that a lot? I mean, I guess I wouldn't know unless you guys give me the healthy criticism here. So, I'll try to look out for how many times I say it with regards to or in regards to.

>> I don't know. I thought I'd only heard it a few times. It seemed pretty appropriate to me. Well, you know, look, G, leave it up to my chat to, you know, obviously give me any any type of corrections or or critiques that I need. Hey, I appreciate it. It makes it makes me better, right? Like, I'm not, you know, I'm not not opposed to some good criticism every now and then. But, uh, John, to take us out, just repeat again where people can find you. Um, you know, any any type of plugs you want to give for for yourself, for your businesses, let let everybody know.

Uh, John Aaron Bray, uh, on Instagram, YouTube, or X. And then, um, if you're curious about any of my work or the data, um, follow theepicenter.com. And then my beautiful wife's company, uh, bluemountainfarmok.com. If you, if you're curious about holistic, um, you know, self-care products, and, uh, we make kombucha and kefir soda also. So just things that we needed in our own lives and we, we make enough of it to share with with our our outward family. So,

>> What are those, uh, what are those top-selling, uh, products that that you guys make and sell?

>> Tallow cream. Um, and then toothpaste, deodorants. Basically the the top list of things that that are very questionable that you would buy at the big box store that have chemicals in them that you can't pronounce and made by Unilever or Proctor & Gamble, which,

>> We all know we can't trust them. So, you know, we, we tried to make alternatives and, uh, all these products we made for our own family and we loved them enough to to make enough of them for you guys, too. So,

>> Good stuff, man. Yeah, I have, I'll have to check that out myself. We have, you know, we have a couple different toothpastes that we that we use. I mean, I use the, I think I use Mando deodorant that I think is aluminum-free. Um, I'll have to check out what you guys have, though. I'll have to, I'll have to take a look.

>> Yeah.

>> Does it smell, Does the deodorant smell good? Like, does it smell manly? Like, do you use it?

>> I, I have like a thing where I, I like to use things that are are are biblical. So, I use a lot of frankincense. We use a lot of myrrh, a lot of olive oil. It's kind of the the the basis of a lot of our formulations. And then,

>> Um, I use the CO2, um, extracts. They're very clean. There's no solvents left in them. And they give you like the the the fullest body of the actual resin. So it smells like you're smelling frankincense tears. And so we're actually going to start making that ourselves. You guys hear that first? I have a, we're starting a line of essential oils basically, um, using CO2 extracts. So, that'll be the next thing we'll start to provide for our community.

>> Cool. Cool. Good stuff. We'll make sure that all those links are are in the notes of the show. But, um, John, thanks so much for, uh, joining me here today, man. I appreciate you.

>> God bless.

>> Um, thank you. Thank you. All right, everybody. That's going to be it for today. Uh, thanks for joining us, and I'll see you all tomorrow. Take care.