Jason Goodman: Charlie Kirk Investigation,
Theories, and Evidence Analysis

Background and Expertise

Jason Goodman is a cinematographer and visual effects specialist who transitioned into investigative journalism through his show Crowdsource the Truth. His professional background includes work on major Hollywood productions such as Amazing Spider-Man, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Metallica: Through the Never. He specialized in stereoscopic 3D systems and has decades of experience with digital imaging, video encoding, and photo manipulation dating back to Photoshop version 1.07.

This technical expertise has informed his approach to analyzing evidence in high-profile cases. Goodman emphasizes that he approaches investigations analytically rather than with predetermined conclusions, stating that he goes to places "corporate-owned, advertiser-sponsored news will not go" because he wants to know the truth rather than satisfy donors or advertisers.

The Charlie Kirk Case and Core Thesis

Goodman's central argument regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination is that the conservative activist was shot from behind by a projectile moving at approximately 500 feet per second, rather than from the front or killed by an exploding microphone. He bases this conclusion on frame-by-frame analysis of video footage that he alleges shows three dots representing a projectile in flight.

These dots appear in video that Goodman traced to being shot on an iPhone in Dolby Vision HDR mode, which he argues can record at 240 frames per second. The spacing between the dots, when measured against Charlie Kirk's known height, corresponds to approximately 2.08 feet—the distance a 500 fps projectile would travel in 1/240th of a second according to calculations Goodman made using ChatGPT.

A key aspect of Goodman's analysis involves understanding how MPEG video compression works. He explains that video codecs use I-frames (intra-compressed standalone frames), P-frames (predicted from previous frames), and B-frames (bidirectional prediction looking forward and backward). Goodman argues that a fast-moving, high-contrast projectile can confuse these algorithms and cause frames to appear out of chronological order—which is why one of the three dots appears to be "out of sequence" in the video timeline, leading many to dismiss his theory.

Evidence Bounty and Public Challenge

To encourage scrutiny of his work and motivate witnesses to come forward with original footage, Goodman has established what he calls an "Evidence Bounty"—not a contest or sweepstakes, but a payment offer for superior evidence or analysis that could refute his thesis. The bounty, which viewers have boosted from Goodman's initial $1,000 to over $2,600, is open until November 4th (year not specified in transcripts).

Goodman emphasizes this is "not some clown who's coming along and trying to do this as a stunt" but rather a legally binding agreement with specific terms and conditions posted at crowdsourcethetruth.org. He argues that the longer the bounty goes unclaimed, the more his hypothesis "becomes a thesis that I am now defending."

The challenge specifically asks people to refute his claims about MPEG encoding behavior, the physics of a 500 fps projectile being photographed at high shutter speeds (1/15,000th or 1/20,000th of a second), and the spacing of the three dots at 240 frames per second. Claimants must reveal their identity to enter into what Goodman describes as "almost a $3,000 business transaction."

Video Analysis and Chain of Custody Issues

A significant portion of Goodman's investigation has focused on tracing the provenance of key video evidence. He originally received a 20-frame-per-second video from Zeb Boykin (spelled "Zeb Boyin" in some transcripts), a U.S. Marine turned YouTuber. Goodman found this frame rate highly unusual—not a standard rate that most professional tools would create by default.

When he interrogated the file's metadata, Goodman discovered it had been transcoded in the "High 10 profile," an HDR encoding, and that creating a 20 fps H.264 MPEG file requires sophisticated software like FFmpeg rather than standard tools like Adobe Premiere. A second version at 30 fps later surfaced but at much lower bitrate, which Goodman found suspicious.

Goodman concluded that both the 20 fps and 30 fps versions must have been derived from an original file with a frame rate evenly divisible by both—either 60, 120, or 240 fps. Given that iPhones since the iPhone 8 can shoot at 240 fps, and given the smooth playback of both versions without the motion artifacts typical of frame rate conversion, Goodman surmised the original was shot at 240 fps.

He eventually connected with what he believes is the original photographer, Samir Masi (or Mossi), a student at Utah Valley University who works for the UVU Review. ABC News published video credited to Masi, though Masi's own account of recording the event (having pizza, going outside, deciding to record because of his good view) raised questions for Goodman about the full circumstances.

Exploding Microphone Theory Rebuttal

Goodman has been particularly critical of the theory that Charlie Kirk was killed by an exploding microphone, as proposed by researchers like Jon Aaron Bray. While acknowledging that shaped charges can be miniaturized and that the Israeli pager attacks demonstrated hidden explosives in consumer electronics, Goodman argues the physical evidence doesn't support this scenario in Kirk's case.

In one exchange captured in the videos, Goodman explains: "I don't think that the guy on the roof was what they told us. I think anytime there's a lot of attention on somebody on the roof and nobody talking about suspicious lasers in the first floor, the guy on the roof is the distraction." This statement reflects his broader skepticism about official narratives.

Regarding the microphone theory specifically, Goodman notes that in video analysis, "we don't even know that he's wearing a necklace. I do think this was a earpiece from his security people." He argues that what others interpret as a necklace breaking and flying over Kirk's head could be an earpiece wire, though he acknowledges uncertainty about this detail.

The magnetic clasp that held the microphone to Kirk's shirt remains visible in footage after the shooting, which Goodman sees as evidence against the microphone explosion theory. If the microphone had exploded with enough force to kill a 6'5" man, he argues, it would have left more obvious damage and the clasp would not have remained attached.

Shooter Location Analysis

Goodman has examined multiple potential shooter locations. He notes that Tyler Robinson, the individual officially identified by authorities, was positioned on a roof with limited line of sight to Charlie Kirk due to tent structures and other obstructions. Goodman created composite photographs and trajectory analyses suggesting that a shooter positioned behind Kirk—possibly in or near a Chrysler Pacifica van that can be seen in footage—would better explain the physical evidence.

Using stereoscopic analysis principles from his Hollywood work, Goodman examined how two-dimensional photographs can be misleading when trying to understand three-dimensional shooting scenarios. He demonstrated how the same person who appears close to Kirk's tent in one camera angle is actually much farther away when viewed from a different angle, illustrating the difficulty of spatial analysis from single photos.

One piece of evidence Goodman finds "extremely suspicious" is that the rear door of a van near the scene opens approximately five seconds before Kirk is shot, then closes after the shooting. While acknowledging this alone doesn't prove anything, he considers it worthy of investigation given his thesis that the shot came from behind Kirk.

Goodman also notes that "from looking at this video, I could tell as a cinematographer and someone who's looked at a lot of digital video examples, I could tell that this was shot with an iPhone." This expertise allows him to make technical determinations about evidence that other investigators might miss.

Pre-Charged Pneumatic Rifle Theory

Central to Goodman's thesis is his argument that Kirk was shot with a pre-charged pneumatic (PCP) rifle or handgun rather than a conventional firearm. He admits, "I'm not a gun expert. I've been learning about all of this over the past month. I never heard of a PCP rifle before this happened."

According to Goodman, PCP rifles can fire large-caliber projectiles (.50 caliber and higher) at approximately 500 feet per second, which is subsonic and therefore would not create the supersonic "crack" associated with high-powered rifles. Some models can generate 400 foot-pounds of force, "and it would certainly be lethal at close range."

This theory helps explain several anomalies Goodman identifies in the case: the wound characteristics that don't match a high-powered rifle, the apparent lack of massive tissue destruction that would accompany a supersonic round, and the presence of what he interprets as a projectile captured in multiple video frames. The lower velocity would also explain why the projectile could be photographed in three distinct positions—faster rifle rounds would travel much farther between frames.

Goodman acknowledges that "law enforcement experts" and "professional shooters and hunters and marines" have limited experience with low-velocity projectiles compared to their extensive knowledge of supersonic rifle rounds, which may be why this possibility has been overlooked. "We don't know what happens" with subsonic rounds in these scenarios, he argues.

Butler, Pennsylvania Investigation

Beyond the Charlie Kirk case, Goodman has investigated the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. He obtained an unredacted after-action report from the Beaver County District Attorney's office through a right-to-know request, which contained information that had been redacted in the version sent to Senator Chuck Grassley.

The report revealed the names and phone numbers of police officers and federal agents involved, including someone listed as "Rafael Edwardo Castro" identified as a "counter UAS operator" (UAS meaning unmanned/unpiloted aerial system). Goodman found this suspicious given his theory that drones were involved in the Butler incident.

From Butler PD body camera footage, Goodman identified what he describes as "a flash in the window" at the precise instant the first shot was fired at Trump. He explains: "This dot occupies six video frames, which is 1/5 of a second. That's kind of a very long time. And to me, this is a laser of some kind, whether it's a rangefinder or some sort of signaling device."

Using video stabilization techniques, Goodman demonstrated that this light source was inside the building and stationary relative to the window frame—ruling out the possibility it was a reflection of headlights, which would move as the camera-wearing officer moved. "This is someone inside the first floor of the building operating some sort of signaling device or targeting device or range-finding device," he concludes.

Drone and Electronic Warfare Theories

A recurring theme in Goodman's investigations is the potential role of drones and electronic warfare capabilities. In the Charlie Kirk case, he identified what he believes was a U.S. Army ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) jet from the Hades program flying unusually low (200 feet above ground) near Utah Lake, about two miles from the university, approximately 30 minutes before the shooting.

Public information about the Hades program indicates the Army has been seeking ways to launch drones from these aircraft. Goodman analyzed video from Adam Bartholomew, a journalist whose son attends UVU, who recorded for over 20 minutes before and after the incident. In this footage, Goodman identified objects he believes were drones, distinguishing them from birds based on flight patterns, apparent smoke emissions, and rigid body characteristics.

Particularly notable is that Bartholomew's YouTube livestream was cut off "1 second before the bullet was fired," according to Goodman, who suspects electronic warfare capabilities were used to disrupt unauthorized recordings. Bartholomew's triple-redundant recording system allowed him to retain footage despite the disruption, which Goodman sees as an unintended breach in what was supposed to be comprehensive signal jamming.

Another content creator, a young woman streaming on TikTok, also lost her recording at the critical moment, adding to Goodman's suspicion that "some sort of electronic warfare was underway to prevent people from recording this incident." He describes this as part of a "high accuracy detection and exploitation system"—the meaning of the HADES acronym.

Critiques and Controversies

Goodman's work has generated significant controversy and pushback from other investigators. Dr. Chris Martinson accused Goodman of "manipulating evidence" and committing "fraud" based on how Goodman presented the composite photograph showing the three alleged projectile positions. Goodman strongly disputes this, explaining that he clearly labeled his work as a "photo illustration" and never claimed the three dots appeared consecutively in the video: "I never said that. I've been saying since the first day that these things showed up that this dot appears out of time."

The dispute centers on whether laypeople understand the difference between a composite created for instructional purposes and a claim that frames appeared in a specific sequence. Goodman challenged Martinson to a second debate to address these concerns, which Martinson declined. Goodman argues that if his analysis were fraudulent, "the police would say, 'Here you go, Goodman, you idiot. Look at this evidence and go away and leave us alone. This proves you're wrong.' But they didn't do that."

Some critics have focused on apparent inconsistencies, such as why the three dots representing the alleged projectile are not perfectly aligned or are different sizes. Goodman attributes this to different levels of video compression and quality between the source videos—the third dot came from the more heavily compressed 30 fps version, which would account for size differences.

There have also been anonymous attempts to claim the evidence bounty with alternative theories. One involved an individual using a ProtonMail address who proposed that Kirk's necklace punctured his neck during a cavitation event. Goodman refused to engage seriously with this claim, partly because the person remained anonymous and partly because he found the theory physically implausible and unsupported by evidence.

Medical and Ballistic Evidence Considerations

Goodman has extensively researched wound ballistics to support his thesis. He notes that "with a high velocity impact to the neck, the zone two of the neck particular, you would have instantaneous effects, right? You would have atomized blood. You would have cavitation. There's no way that you would have it's .43 seconds delay from when the shirt first moves to when you see the neck wound even appear."

This timing issue—the delay between the shirt movement and the appearance of blood—is central to Goodman's argument against a high-velocity rifle round. He states that "it's almost a whole second before blood appears out of the neck wound," which he argues is inconsistent with the immediate, violent tissue disruption that supersonic rounds cause.

Regarding autopsy reports, Goodman maintains skepticism about their reliability. He notes, "I have not seen an officially released medical examiner's report. I have heard people say that they've spoken to people who have seen that." He cites historical examples like Fahmy Malak, a coroner during Bill Clinton's time as Arkansas governor, who ruled obvious homicides as suicides, demonstrating that medical examiners "can be paid off just like anyone else" or "threatened just like anyone else."

Goodman also addresses the claim that the projectile remained in Kirk's body: "Even if I did" see an official report confirming this, he argues, the evidence of what appears to be an exit wound and the physics of projectile behavior would take precedence over a potentially compromised or coerced official determination.

Financial Irregularities and Motive Questions

Working with financial fraud investigator Charles Ortel, Goodman has examined the financial operations of Turning Point USA and related entities. Ortel noticed "literally millions of dollars going to very suspicious entities that weren't properly reported in the public filings." This led Goodman to consider whether financial motives might be involved in Kirk's death.

Goodman notes that on September 2nd, just eight days before his death, Kirk sent an organization-wide email introducing a new CFO or COO who would conduct "an organization-wide audit and a DOJ style reworking of the finances to make the organization more efficient." While acknowledging that eight days might not be enough time to plan a sophisticated assassination, Goodman suggests Kirk's intention to audit the organization's finances likely predated that email by some time.

This financial angle provides what Goodman sees as a potential motive: "If if Charlie was bringing in that person to do that, it's also reasonable to presume that his idea to do this type of audit would have existed for more than eight days." The possibility of exposing embezzlement or money laundering could provide motive for individuals "who might have been put in jail for the rest of their lives."

Goodman emphasizes he is "not accusing anybody in particular of anything in particular" but rather following evidence of "suspicious aspects" that deserve investigation. This measured approach reflects his stated methodology of analyzing evidence without predetermined conclusions about who might be responsible.

Technical Analysis of Video Compression

A significant portion of Goodman's work involves explaining technical aspects of digital video that most viewers don't understand. He emphasizes that "when things are uploaded to one platform like TikTok, downloaded somewhere else," and viewed on YouTube or other platforms, "each of these platforms transcode the files, compress the images."

This compression creates what Goodman calls "artifacts"—visual anomalies that aren't actually part of the original scene. For example, regarding whether Kirk wore a necklace or headset: "If he's got a clear or mostly clear headset, and particularly if we're far away and it's been recompressed, the computer might not see the difference in color between the headset and his skin in such a way that it doesn't record it at all."

Goodman explains that MPEG compression works by dividing images into "macro blocks of pixels" and creating "averages of groups of pixels." Rather than recording every pixel in every frame, the algorithm saves space by recording mathematical equations that describe what changed between frames. "It's like a recipe," Goodman explains, where "a much smaller piece of data that's sent" can be decoded to recreate "what looks essentially like the image, but takes up much less space."

The bidirectional temporal prediction of B-frames is particularly important to Goodman's thesis. When a high-contrast object like a projectile moves rapidly against varied backgrounds (dark hair, shadow, medium gray wall), the algorithm "becomes confused. It's not a human. It doesn't understand that we're looking at a bullet or a gun." This can cause frames to be "presented out of order," which Goodman argues explains why the three dots don't appear in perfect chronological sequence.

Comparison to Other Investigations

Goodman draws parallels between his Charlie Kirk investigation and his work on other controversial events. He mentions examining "suspicious things that happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, suspicious things that happened here in Utah, suspicious things that happened on 9/11." This context helps explain his investigative approach and the scrutiny he faces from those who dismiss such work as "conspiracy theory."

Goodman prefers the term "analytics" to "conspiracy theory," arguing that he "approach[es] it in a very analytic and scientific method." He has "come to learn over the nine years that I've been doing this that the people who are involved in criminal conspiracies who want to hide them don't like it when people like me do what I'm doing."

This experience has made Goodman particularly alert to what he calls "social engineering"—attempts to discredit investigators or muddy the evidentiary waters. He suspects that anonymous sources offering alternative theories or claiming to refute his work may be engaged in deliberate disinformation. His refusal to seriously engage with anonymous bounty claimants reflects this concern about infiltration and diversion tactics.

Collaboration and Peer Review

Despite controversies, Goodman has appeared on numerous platforms to present and defend his work. His appearances on Redacted with Natali and Clayton Morris have been particularly significant in reaching wider audiences. He has also been featured on TriggerSmart, a firearms-focused YouTube channel, where he debated his thesis with host Matthew and other experts.

On the TriggerSmart appearance, Goodman emphasized the value of having "law enforcement professionals" and military veterans analyze his evidence, stating: "I really appreciate the way... this is a show that focuses on former law enforcement and military people because you guys analyze evidence and ballistic evidence and video evidence in a different way than the average person on the internet would."

Goodman contrasts this approach with what he sees as problematic methodology among some internet investigators: "What I'm observing in social media spaces is a lot of people kind of develop these pet theories, whatever appeals to their biases and they kind of latch onto that. I've seen a lot of people sort of begin with a theory and then search for evidence that satisfies that theory."

He has also worked with audio forensics expert Matt (featured on TriggerSmart), whose frequency analysis and reflection mapping provided independent corroboration for aspects of Goodman's shooter location theories. Goodman suggested future collaboration: "Maybe Matt, maybe Zeb Boykin as well. Jason's good with video, you know, like maybe we can all sort of like say, okay, what works."

Ongoing Questions and Future Directions

Several aspects of Goodman's investigation remain unresolved or require further analysis. He acknowledges that his current work represents "just one measurement, off four mics" and that more layering of data is needed before reaching definitive conclusions. "Once you get four mics all giving you the same thumbs up saying, 'Yes, this works,' it's really kind of hard to argue," but he hasn't yet completed that full analysis.

Regarding the original 240 fps video he believes exists, Goodman states: "The higher this number goes"—referring to the evidence bounty—"the less it makes sense that whoever shot it" wouldn't come forward. "Where is the college student who would want this evidence bounty?" he asks, suggesting the absence of such a claimant is itself suspicious.

Legal obstacles have also emerged. Goodman mentions that he "sued the Beaver County District Attorney and the ESU, the SWAT team, and the police officers" seeking original high-resolution photos from the Butler incident, including the iPhone files from Detective Richard Giovinco. Despite court orders, authorities "refused to give the evidence," which Goodman interprets as confirmation that "what I'm saying is right" since releasing the evidence would presumably debunk his claims if they were false.

Looking forward, Goodman indicates his investigation will continue to focus on "process of elimination"—testing hypotheses against physical evidence and discarding those that don't hold up. His ultimate goal, as stated across multiple appearances, is simply to "know the truth" rather than confirm any predetermined narrative, a principle he sees as distinguishing his work from both official investigations and competing online theories.