It's a future of garbage. No more Eric Adams. He's dropping out of the NYC mayor race. I mean, I never thought I would say Eric Adams not being the mayor would be bad, but it does seem to give Zoran Ma Donnie just a better chance. I don't want to talk about that so much right now. We'll see what happens with the NYC mayor race. There's something strange happening that I wanted to try to put more attention on because I don't know, maybe other people won't think it's strange. I think it's strange. A lot of people are still interested in figuring out what's going on with the Charlie Kirk assassination. I am. And I found some I guess I can only call it forensic evidence that I think is extremely important. I did a tweet thread, an X thread about it. And you know people who are following me on X. Well, first of all, I also want to me mention this. I always talk about following me on xj cstt, but also you can follow me for a while. I've had this. I don't talk about it as much because I don't want to confuse people, but it becomes relevant now. You can also follow me at Jason Goodmannyc. And there's a lot of the same material on both of those accounts. I put all the videos out, the live streaming videos on the Jason Goodman NYC account as well, but I really focused more of my attention on the crowdsource the truth one and it was doing really well. I was gaining kind of a lot of traction with some of this information about Charlie Kirk. Maybe people have been watching that. Uh, this is my regular ex account right here and it's grown pretty well. I'm I'm pleased. 87,000 people or something like that. So, this tweet here, it's getting suppressed. Look at that. Every single one of them, it says, "Oo, sensitive content." But even when it's just still images that don't show gore and blood, um, this one now that might show him actually getting shot, but I think that there's context. You know, you can say, "Oh, there's context to this. It's an analysis." Um, I was doing well. All these tweets, look at how much attention they're getting. 700,000 on that one with John Cullen. 1.4 is that there's Yeah. 98,000 on this one. It's still doing all right. But what I was trying to illustrate here with this little brief screen capture video is that for the past several days, these ex posts I've been putting up about the Charlie Kirk murder have been very quickly going to like a million. And I'm not, this isn't like, oo, social media a million clicks. I'm just saying there's a lot of people who are interested in that and who have come to follow the information that I've been discussing and sharing with other people who are covering this. Zeb Boyin, John Cullen, other people and also people are going to remember maybe last week or two weeks ago I discovered those drones in Adam Bartholomew's video. People should follow Adam at life is driving on X and you know these are the topics that have a lot of people wondering what is going on in that murder and the investigation. So that's why it's getting millions of clicks and people sharing it and there's a very large account called HustleBitch that shared the drone video got to 12 million views. So again, I'm not like oo views notoriety. I'm saying this is the way this information gains influence. If public opinion can sway, you know, when 12 million people see that information, people like Donald Trump Jr., Joe Rogan, I mean, that's maybe how some of this stuff bubbles to the surface and something can happen. And that's the whole purpose of doing Crowdsource the Truth. You know, um, if I just wanted to make money, there are far easier things that I could do. And by the way, historically speaking, over the eight years that I've been doing this, I haven't made that much money. I've been getting my ass kicked, you know, drag through court, losing money more than anything. I do appreciate the people who sponsor the show on subscribestar.com and patreon.com. /crowdsource thetruth also on crowdsource thetruth.substack.com substack.com future of garbage and people who are sponsoring me by following on XJ_CST. That's one difference. See, you you can't subscribe on at Jason Goodmannyc, but you can on JG_CST for $5 a month on there. You're going to get access to the same sponsor exclusive content that people get on the other sponsor channels. Unfortunately, X doesn't allow you to do live streams for sponsors only. I don't know why. That seems like it would be a pretty easy thing for them to do, but I've tried it a lot of ways and it just doesn't work. So, the sponsor exclusive shows go on to X after they're done. If people want to enjoy uh sponsor exclusive content live, you got to get on to Patreon or Subscribe Star or Substack. But anyway, the point is I do need money to eat and to pay for all the different services that I use to produce the show. Phone subscriptions, you know, uh various internet accounts of all kinds that are needed, all that kind of stuff. It's quite expensive. So thanks to the people who sponsor. But the point is, >> you know, we want to put out these videos and this information so that something can happen. People can get arrested and stuff like that. If people were watching this morning, not random people, by the way. I mean so criminals can get arrested and we can have some justice. I mean this is like democracy, right? we the people trying to do something rather than sitting there and watching corporateowned news that I think most people watching would agree seems to be manipulating the stories and the truth. That was the whole reason why I wanted to create crowdsource the truth. So it becomes doubly annoying when we see people trying to infiltrate this social media information space to essentially do the same thing that the corporateowned and major corporation controlled commercial news has been doing forever. And look, I mean, it stands to reason those people have billions of dollars. They're going to try to do the same thing. latch on to idiots like Blake, George Webb, Ryan Mada, whoever the idiot of the week is, motivate those guys in some way. I don't have direct evidence that they're being paid to do this, but it does seem quite obvious to me that those guys are either fatally stupid or deliberately trying to lie to people or perhaps both. But the point is, want to get this information out and that requires building a following on social media so that people see this stuff. Otherwise, I'm just shouting into an empty room. We had a great show this morning with Charles. If people caught that, it was a special episode of Charles Ortell is overseas. We had this very experienced and really intelligent, wellspoken, nice guy, Ron Chapman. He's an attorney. He's a Marine. He's been investigating the Clintons. And he revealed something on the show this morning that he hasn't even talked about on his own YouTube channel. He said when he was in the Marines or when he was active I should say he was in Afghanistan and he told us that people were killed in his you know division or troop or whatever you call it. They were trying to protect the area where this hydro electric dam was under construction. And this was like a state department project set up by Hillary Clinton. And it was intended to create >> Dude, get the [ __ ] away from me. >> Get away from me, dude. R. >> The dam was intended to create an independent electrical source for this area of Afghanistan at the time was no longer under the control of the Taliban. And people should watch that show to see what Ron had to say about it. But he suspects, if I understood what he was telling me correctly, that the Marines and the US military resources that were used to protect that had been inappropriately allocated and that it was basically just intended to create business opportunities for people who maybe had paid Hillary Clinton or donated money to the Hillary Clinton, you know, the Bill and Hillary Clinton Chelsea Clinton Foundation, whatever the hell it's called this week. But it was interesting. I mean, Ron was talking about a very sophisticated way in which money can essentially be laundered. Taxpayer funds and military resources and people's lives destroyed, killed, who knows who was injured over there, but just so that Hillary Clinton and the companies who want to build this dam, which by the way never got built, that's how they get money. So, he knows a lot about Benghazi. He even said he couldn't tell us certain things that he knows about Benghazi because they're classified. And one of the things I find super interesting about that guy in particular is that as a lawyer I think look I haven't spoken to him apart from what we said on the show today. So I'm not saying anything out of school. I'm not revealing anything. He hasn't told me anything secret. I'm just saying I would presume someone like him with his unique qualifications. And by that I mean he's a marine, he's a lawyer. And not just a lawyer, he's an LLM. So he's got a master's degree in law, not just a jurist doctor degree. Seems that any [ __ ] can get one of those. This guy has a master's degree. So if he knows things that he learned through doing military missions and classified stuff, maybe he has uh sufficient legal background that he can find a way to get uh another approach to share that information without violating the classified laws. you know, whatever laws and statutes determine how you're not able to reveal classified information. I don't know. That's my own speculation. I don't know what it is that he intends to do other than, like I said, put out information. I mean, that's just it. If he can find public domain information that reveals things that he knows through his classified uh information status, if it's already in the public domain, he's not breaking any laws. Anyway, we'll see where that goes. It's an interesting video. People should check that out. Ronald Chapman, very smart and interesting guy. And getting him together with Charles. I mean, it was quite obvious to me once I saw this guy, Ron Chapman, that he had to speak to Charles. Who knows more about the Clinton Foundation than Charles? And sure enough, there was a lot of nuance and a lot of information that Charles had that Ron hadn't heard about before. I could see him taking notes while we were talking. And that's what I mean. He's a very like diligent kind of I don't know if academic is the right word, but he approaches this information not like a like Dan Bonino as a braggadocious podcaster, but as a lawyer, kind of like almost giving you a presentation in court. So, I hope that some people will agree with me that it's a particularly interesting approach. Take a look at Ron Chapman and that video we did with Charles this morning. But the thing that I mainly wanted to talk about was just the fact that the videos or rather the tweets that I've been doing have been getting super duper suppressed. Have people have people seen that? Almost every tweet, every ex post I'm putting out since yesterday morning has been getting these sensitive content warnings even when they don't contain sensitive content. So, what I did was I put out some of the same material on Jason Goodman NYC just so hopefully people can see it. You might want to consider following me on both of these accounts. But look, it's obviously not getting anywhere near the reach. I mean, this account is maybe about onethird the size of the other one, but it gets way less than onethird of the traction. And what I'm talking about in this tweet thread is evidence that I see that I believe indicates that the shot that killed Charlie Kirk came not from a highpowered rifle from somebody on a roof in front of him. I'm not denying that such a weapon was fired, but I'm saying he was killed. It appears by a low velocity projectile fired from somewhere behind him. And there is kind of like a tunnel underneath uh the college building there that he was sitting in front of. It's like an overpass. And I think it's coming from within that tunnel. It certainly makes sense. It looks like the trajectory of the projectile and something could have been hidden in there. A person could have been hiding in there or could have entered there, done the shot and left. But there are several, this is not a guess that I've come up with. I don't just like hold my finger up to the wind and say, "Oh, I think a drone did it." Or, "I think his exploding microphone was put there because Israel exploded pagers." And by the way, nothing I'm saying absolves any particular party from having done this. I'm not saying Israel did not kill Charlie Kirk. I don't have any evidence either way. I do believe some of the things that people have raised are quite intriguing. BB Netanyahu has said a lot of stupid things. Charlie Kirk was questioning what was going on with Epstein and stuff like that. Those are interesting data points. I don't know that they qualify as evidence idiot. I don't know that they qualify as evidence of murder. But again, people like Ryan Mada and other idiots who are quick to make up nonsense, I think, to try to fool people. >> They seem to think that I'm defending certain particular parties. I'm not. I don't know who did this, and I don't know why. I'm just saying I see photographic and video evidence that a low-speed projectile, and by low speed, I don't mean 20 miles an hour. I'm talking about a lower much lower muzzle velocity than a high-powered rifle which fires supersonic rounds of tremendous force with insane kinetic energy. I mean that's why people are saying these 306 rounds would you know explode the neck of a deer. And I mean I don't have any experience with those bullets. I'm aware that rifle rounds are extremely powerful. I can look at videos and see what they do. I'm not the type of person who can say, "Oh, you know, I've been a medic in Afghanistan, so I've seen lots of injuries like this and can give a firsthand evaluation." I've just seen videos and I'm aware of the science of how these things work. And I can also observe a lot of experts saying, "Hey, there's no way that this type of round caused this type of injury." One of the most notable things that I observed about this incident is that so many of the experts in these fields disagree about what we're looking at. I would say half think we're looking at an entrance wound on the front of the neck and half say no that's an exit wound and there's just a lot of disagreement among experts. So taking that data point, the disagreement and setting aside the particular field of expertise, I don't need expertise in ballistics or hunting or guns to recognize that there's a big divide among experts as far as what this incident what the what the photo and video evidence represents. They're not in agreement. And so to me that says that we're looking at something novel that these experts don't have a lot of experience in seeing and so they're not able to make a clear judgment. So well what does that mean? If there's different types of rifles that shoot bullets at 2,000 ft per second or 1,000 ft per second or whatever it is, I think we're looking at a projectile fired at approximately 500 ft per second. So, it's a low muzzle velocity compared to a high powered rifle. And that results in much less kinetic energy. That doesn't mean it's not lethal, and that doesn't mean that it couldn't have killed him gone through his neck. I don't know. Those things remain open questions. I I can ask chat GPT and things like that and describe what I think it might be and ask if an air rifle or an air pistol that can fire a projectile at 500 ft per second if that would be lethal at close range and if it could generate sufficient kinetic force to penetrate someone's neck and come out the front. And the answer is generally yes, but it depends a lot on the caliber of the round. And that seems like a good answer because if it just said yes, people would be right to point out that we really don't know all the parameters of what we're looking at. If it's a high caliber round, a low caliber round, there would be, you know, more or less kinetic energy. you know kinetic energy the uh is it 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. So obviously the greater the mass the more the kinetic energy there's going to be there. The mass is enough that we see these different images of something flying through the air. Now people tell me oh it looks like it's moving away from him. And again, now we're in the area that is within my expertise, digital video, digital imaging, and there's a lot of people making judgments about this stuff who don't have sufficient expertise in those areas to even understand what they're looking at. So, they're making a lot of judgments based on incorrect input. Uh, even John Cullen was commenting on some of the uh, posts I made on X saying that to him it looked like this projectile was moving away from Charlie. And I've explained many times that that is because of meg video compression, the high contrast nature of this projectile versus the background it's seen against and the fast speed at which it's moving. I've also spoken about how a bullet could be captured midair on a cell phone camera more easily than a broadcast camera or even necessarily Doug Mills professional camera with the electronic shutter set to 18,000th of a second exposure time. We could easily have an iPhone on a bright and sunny day setting to 125,000th of a second, 150,000th of a second. We've even seen on that iPhone 6S situations in which it could reduce the exposure time to as little as 177,000th of a second. I was very surprised by that. So, there's a lot of people who have experience in ballistics and they've watched a lot of these high-speed ballistics channels on YouTube. Got a big construction project happening over here. They've watched a lot of these high-speed ballistic channels on YouTube where they see cameras, you know, at 10,000 frames a second, etc., etc., and they're not aware of the disconnection between the frame rate at which things are being recorded and the exposure time of each individual frame. That does come into play in this analysis. And so I get it that it's complicated for people to understand. There are a lot of concepts here and a lot of esoteric, you know, details and elements of minutiae having to do with photography, digital imaging, motion video compression that a lot of people don't know anything about. Even people who are very knowledgeable in other fields might not. So I'm going to do a little something this afternoon. kind of a bit of a technological experiment of my own. I'm going to do a a video explainer where I'm going to go into details about all of this evidence that I found that informs me that Charlie Kirk was killed by a low muzzle velocity projectile shot at him from the rear. I'm going to go through all the evidence that I found that tells me that and I'm going to do it in a unique way that I haven't tried before. And I've wanted to do this for a long time. People who have been watching for a long, long time might remember when I was doing shows with Michael Moore. We attempted once, I think I've done this twice. Tried it once a call-in show. I tried it once with Michael Moore where I signed up to this online service called like, you know, callin.com or something like that where it was intended for kind of radio broadcasting where it gave you a phone number and you could have like a 7-second delay and stuff like that and, you know, put people in a green room and you could like bring them on and it gave you kind of like multiphone line capability and all that kind of stuff. But it was pretty expensive for what it was. Had limitations for, you know, video podcasting and it just it there was a litany of problems with that. The audio quality was terrible. So, we did it once with Mike Moore and I think it worked out all right, but I never was really able to realize exactly what I wanted to do with that. We tried it again, I'm pretty sure, with Manny Grossman where we allowed people to call in on Zoom and then, you know, that had its own complications as far as letting people in. And you know, anytime you do this, obviously there's a lot of tricksters and social engineers and you know, George's brother is probably wetting his pants right now trying to get involved in getting on air and saying something that can get the channel kicked off or you know, all kinds of stupid things that these people are going to want to calculate to try to do that. But I have a new idea as to how we can approach this. And what I'm going to do is when I'm done with this walk, I'm going to go back to the apartment and I'm going to do a sponsor exclusive video broadcast that people will be able to get on all the sponsored channels. So, if you aren't sponsoring yet, please become a sponsor and go on to subscribest.com or patreon.com/crowdsource. Go on to crowdsource.substack.com. substack.com and you're going to be able to get the video live stream where I will go through and explain this admittedly very complicated evidence. I'm going to be doing screen shares from some of the really high-end professional software that I use to analyze and create videos and things like Adobe After Effects. Not that exotic. Anybody can get that. But I've been using these tools for years and years and I have a very good understanding of how they work and how the different video formats we're going to look at work. And I think people who know how to use these tools will find it interesting. And people who don't may learn something. Not that you might, it's not going to be a tutorial on how to use these things, but it'll educate you as to how I make these determinations about videos and photos and things like that. And then in the future when you see evidence from an event like this, rather than thinking, "Oh, the chair is going through the ground, so this must be an AI video and Charlie Kirk is still alive." Instead of coming to idiotic conclusions like that, or instead of being a real idiot and doing optical flow analysis on an incredibly low bit rate, decimated, cropped, piece of [ __ ] video, you'll be able to make certain determinations like, is this of sufficient quality for me to trust what I see or should I understand that there could be things about the technology that's used to present this video that are distorting what we actually see in a way that could specifically create this effect that some people think looks like a chair moving through a floor. Obviously, we know solid objects on planet Earth unless you're Ashton Forbes. They can't penetrate other solid objects and so there must be some other explanation. Maybe someone's figured out. Someone has figured out how to control the relationship between matter and energy and we're living in Star Trek. Maybe that's possible. I don't think so. I haven't seen evidence that convinces me of that. I think it's more likely that people are making evaluations from truly problematic video evidence that really opens the door for sinister parties who know the types of things I'm going to discuss to be able to manipulate public opinion and fool you. So basically people will be able to watch on the sponsor exclusive video channels and because I'm not able to do a live broadcast on X for the people who do sponsor on X. Thank you for doing that. What I'm going to do is I'm going to have a Simocast live stream on Subscribear, Patreon, and Substack and Odyssey for the two people who are using cryptocurrency to sponsor an Odyssey. Thank you to you people too. And there's going to be a simultaneous X space where people will be able to ask me anything. and the XSpace. The audio portion of this presentation will be free. So, anybody who's following me on XJ_CST will be able to listen. Sponsors of the show will be able to come up to the stage in the X space and ask specific questions. And I'm going to try this out. I think it might be a good solution to a couple of different problems because I like X spaces, but I'm frequently frustrated by the fact that you can't look at videos on an X space. And often people are talking about things and trying to illustrate points that require really maybe a lot of visual information, but you just can't easily get it on the X space. And likewise, some of these channels that allow, you know, video live streams don't have very good interactive chat capability and certainly don't easily allow sponsors or, you know, just listeners or whatever to call in and directly ask questions. So, this will be a new approach, something I haven't tried before. I don't know, maybe other people have done this. I haven't seen it too much. And if it works well, maybe this will be something I can do moving forward. Maybe not always as a sponsor exclusive, but I think it's a good way to introduce it just to reduce the volume and give me an opportunity to kind of work through some of the technological challenges of doing that. I did test out, I think, all of the things I'm going to need to make this work, and I do believe it will work. Although with anything technological, until you actually try it, you never know what's going to pop up. So, this will be sort of a uh dress rehearsal live test of an ask me anything video live stream with accompanying X space. And um I am going to control who the speakers are. We're not going to let every idiot under the sun come in there and inject stupid statements and dumb opinions and things like that, but I think it'll be an interesting way >> for people to ask me certain specific questions about what's going on in this video and how I came to the conclusions that I've come to. Because I think the fact that the exposts on my big X account, the exposts that I've been putting on at JG_CST, I don't think it's a coincidence that every single one of them has been hit with this sensitive content message uh as of yesterday. I just I just don't I think that's being done because I'm talking about something that maybe somebody doesn't want me talking about. I mean, I see lots and lots of stupid posts about exploding DJI microphones and ballistic drones firing bullets at Charlie Kirk that are absolutely >> implausible at best, if not outright stupid. And those things are going viral. And on previous days when I was kind of dancing around this, it seemed like those were allowed to go somewhat viral. You know what's interesting? It was the first one to get the sensitive content posting on it was that red one where I put the big red warning saying this video may contain or or you know this post yeah it says this video may contain some imagery that viewers might find disturbing. So that one once it hit 1.7 million which happened in about a day then it got a warning on it. here. This one, see, it went to 1.7 million and then it got the warning posted to it. And then after that, every single one of these things started getting a warning. And the thing with the red warning, that was the first one where I really started to illustrate the evidence that caused me to conclude he was shot from behind. I see a lot of people putting messages in there like, "Could it be this Ukrainian drone that's, you know, shooting a gun in this pretty obviously visual effects generated video that's at the quality of VHS and say, could it be that, you know, whatever all these different things I mean could it be? I suppose we could analyze every hypothetical thing that it could be, but that's not really a val, you know, a valid investigative process in my view. In my view, the first thing that we need to do is identify what is evidence. Okay. So, uh, an animated video of a slaughterbot or a promotional video for an Anderil Bolt M is not evidence that something happened at the Utah Valley University. You know, the fact that you can take a drone and put, you know, 2 kg of explosives in it and fly it up to somebody's face and have it detonate and kill them is quite different than having something traveling 100 or 200 m an hour undetected and also place an accurate rifle round in somebody's neck. It's very, very different. So when I say identifying what might be evidence, when I see a guy shooting a video of the incident and it's like the highest bit rate video that we've seen and one version of is 20 frames per second and another version of it is 30 frames per second, I start to the gears start turning and I start to understand that we're looking at something very unique and this is an important piece of evidence to investigate further. Now, we still haven't found the original video. I have explained several times how I determined that I think that video was shot at 240 frames per second and what the implications of that are. It certainly would mean in my view that the person doing that would have had fornowledge that this incident was about to occur cuz it's a very unusual thing to do. shoot a video of a guy sitting in a chair talking at essentially ultra high speed. I get it that there are cameras now that shoot 20 million frames per second, but it wasn't that long ago that 240 frame per second high-speed photography was very specialized. What do we got going on here? >> Oh my god, we got a techno crane. Something happening >> up here. [Music] You have to climb up [Music] here right now. >> Wait that way. Sorry. >> What? What is What is going on here? [Music] >> Sorry. >> Congratulations together. Who is that? >> Oh, it's that guy Ed somebody, isn't it? [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] >> Sorry. congratulations [Applause] to celebrate. [Applause] >> So that was cool. >> Anyway, what was I saying? >> Yeah, very unusual. Super techno back there. >> It was so hard to talk to you the whole time. See, I don't know how to operate a super technoc crane, but many, many times I've had to communicate with sophisticated, skilled operators who know how to use that, who understand what the limit, somebody wants to, you know, set off an explosion with the techno super extended in there and then pull back as it explodes and the technocrane operator is going to explain to the director along with the pyrochnics expert that you can't do that. So, we need to come up with a clever idea for how to make all these limitations fit together. I don't need to be an expert in operating a super technoc crane or whatever. So, that's kind of the same thought process that I'm applying to looking at all the different input from all these different ballistics experts, medical experts, applying my own expertise of what we're trying to get to to figure out exactly what it is we're looking at, how we need to look at it, and all of that. So anyway, that's basically all I have to say about it right here in this format. I hope that people are going to join me right after this by becoming sponsors on subscribestar.com/crowdsource thetruth, patreon.com/crowdsource the truth, crowdsource.substack.com, or if you're using cryptocurrency and you're on odyssey.comcrowdsource the truth, you'll be able to see it there. the comments. You're going to be able to listen to the accompanying Xspace on XJ_CST. And I'm just going to say right now, I'm not going to let any old person come in there and speak. Priority is going to be given to sponsors of the show and people will be able to ask me questions. And that's just for now. In the future, maybe there'll be more ask me anything where it'll be open to everybody. But this is going to be ask me anything about this evidence. And obviously if somebody who's not a sponsor, but you know, John Cullen or some person that I know who happens to not be a sponsor has a valid question, we'll let them in. But it's not going to be an open door policy for every trolling idiot to come crap on the show. So, uh, hopefully this will work. It's a technological experiment. Thanks to everybody, including that red, whatever that guy's name is. I forget the Ed Shehan or something like that. This security guy probably knows. Thanks for watching everybody. Stay with me. I'll be right back for a very special episode about all this evidence related to the Charlie Kirk assassination.
