[00:05] Well, new video evidence has emerged
[00:07] showing what our next guest believes is
[00:09] irrefutable evidence that Charlie Kirk
[00:11] was not shot from the front, but from
[00:14] the back. Jason Goodman from Crowd
[00:16] Source: The Truth says Charlie Kirk was
[00:18] shot from behind using a low muzzle
[00:21] velocity projectile. He's willing to
[00:23] debate anyone, by the way, who thinks
[00:25] that he's wrong. So, we are an open
[00:27] platform here at Redacted. We welcome
[00:30] all ideas and conversation and we wanted
[00:33] to have Jason on the show so he could
[00:35] show us his evidence and have a dialogue
[00:36] with him. Jason, welcome back to the
[00:38] show.
[00:39] >> Uh, thanks for having me back, Clayton.
[00:41] Good to see you again.
[00:43] >> My pleasure. My pleasure. Okay, so
[00:45] again, maybe we go back to the for
[00:47] people who are just new to the story, I
[00:49] guess, like what is the official story
[00:51] and then what does your evidence you say
[00:54] show us? Of course, the official story
[00:57] is that Tyler Robinson fired a
[00:59] highowered rifle, a 306 round, a
[01:04] supersonic rifle round that has an
[01:06] tremendous amount of kinetic energy.
[01:09] Everybody who is an expert in ballistics
[01:13] and hunting, which I am not, but all of
[01:17] the experts that I observe say this type
[01:19] of round would make a huge blowout even
[01:23] in a much larger animal than a human.
[01:26] You shoot a deer in the neck. People
[01:28] have tested it on cow thighs and things
[01:31] like that. And there should have been a
[01:34] tremendous blowout in the exit wound.
[01:36] And so people have presumed that the
[01:38] small hole that we see in the front of
[01:40] Charlie Kirk's neck uh that he bleeds
[01:44] out of in a in a very disturbing way in
[01:46] a lot of the videos that people have
[01:47] seen that that is an entry wound because
[01:50] entry wounds from rifle rounds are
[01:53] small, exit wounds are large. And um of
[01:57] course we have a lot of people who have
[01:59] audio waveform analysis, acoustic
[02:02] triangulation that they can do these
[02:05] so-called crack thump calculations where
[02:08] they're measuring the differential
[02:10] between the explosive charge that
[02:12] launches the projectile out of the gun
[02:15] and the sound of the bullet actually
[02:17] breaking the sound barrier. I'm also not
[02:19] a math expert. I can't directly
[02:22] challenge the calculations that experts
[02:24] make. uh in that I just don't do the
[02:27] math. But it's important to remember
[02:30] Clayton that, you know, whoever it is
[02:31] that did this. They have a lot of
[02:33] information about the public. You know,
[02:36] in 1963 when John F. Kennedy was
[02:39] assassinated, we can debate on another
[02:42] day whether Abraham Zruder was there by
[02:46] chance or planted there by the FBI. A
[02:48] lot of people have different opinions on
[02:50] that, but there was basically one guy
[02:52] that we know of in the crowd running
[02:54] silent film, 16 millimeter, 8
[02:57] millimeter, whatever it was. Even if
[02:58] there's three or four films, we don't
[03:00] have multiple highresolution audio
[03:03] recordings. People didn't have access to
[03:06] digital waveform analysis. All of these
[03:08] things are available today. So, we saw a
[03:12] similar occurrence in Butler,
[03:14] Pennsylvania, in that there was an
[03:15] assassination attempt involving a
[03:18] high-powered rifle. And I believe it was
[03:20] Mike Adams, the health ranger. He was
[03:22] the first guy I saw. I didn't know
[03:24] anything about this type of crack thump
[03:27] triangulation analysis, but he did a
[03:29] very comprehensive video. And certainly
[03:32] now most people know that that can be
[03:35] done. And if this is a complex
[03:37] conspiracy, we should anticipate that
[03:40] the conspirators would anticipate that
[03:43] public investigations would include this
[03:45] type of analysis and they would want to
[03:48] bake into the cake, as it were, some
[03:51] method of fooling people who would do
[03:54] this analysis. And what I'm about to
[03:56] show you guys explains how that
[03:58] happened, explains why the shot did not
[04:01] come from the front. And I was just
[04:03] watching earlier today, Dr. Chris
[04:05] Martinson has a new video out where he's
[04:08] explaining more about what he thinks
[04:10] happened. He does rely in some of his
[04:13] research on the crack thump
[04:15] triangulation calculations, but he had a
[04:18] question that he couldn't answer that
[04:20] I'm going to answer for you, Clayton,
[04:22] and Natalie and all of your viewers here
[04:24] today.
[04:26] >> All right. And you know, I should point
[04:27] out yesterday Rob O'Neal um the man who
[04:30] killed Osama bin Laden is on the record
[04:33] now saying that right from the very
[04:35] beginning none of it made sense to him
[04:36] and he's shot people in the face. He's
[04:39] like this story is not making anyway. I
[04:43] have never shot anyone in the face. So
[04:45] Rob O'Neal has a vast experience doing
[04:47] that. Uh he knows all too well what that
[04:49] looks like. Um okay. So, let's walk
[04:50] through what you have here and what you
[04:53] say is irrefutable evidence that the
[04:54] shot did not come from the front.
[04:57] >> Yeah. And to be clear, I'm not saying
[04:59] that I know more than people who have
[05:01] that type of firstirhand experience. I
[05:04] don't need to have firstirhand
[05:05] experience shooting people or studying
[05:08] ballistics to just observe all of the
[05:10] professionals who do have that
[05:12] experience. Rob O'Neal, Chris Martinson,
[05:15] uh, Zeb Boyin, all these other, you
[05:17] know, Range Day Bro, all of these guys
[05:19] who do have a lot of experience. I see
[05:22] the experts disagree and that causes me
[05:24] to believe that we're looking at
[05:25] something novel. So, let me show you
[05:27] this. This is the video that I am
[05:30] relying upon and this is a composite
[05:33] image that I created in Adobe Photoshop.
[05:35] Now, to be clear, I didn't create any of
[05:38] these dots. These are all derived from
[05:41] original video frames from two different
[05:43] versions of the same video. Zeb Boyin is
[05:47] a US Marine and now a citizen
[05:50] journalist, a YouTuber, a podcaster and
[05:53] he came to my attention very early in
[05:55] this investigation. He was doing
[05:57] ballistic analysis and he went viral and
[06:01] uh I saw him on Owen Shroyer's show and
[06:04] Owen and I had the same immediate
[06:06] reaction to seeing this video. It was
[06:08] substantially higher quality than really
[06:11] almost any of the other videos that
[06:13] we've seen. Even in Chris Martinson's
[06:15] evaluation, he says, "Some of these
[06:16] videos look like they were shot on a
[06:18] potato. This one exhibits
[06:20] characteristics that cause me to believe
[06:22] that it came from the original
[06:25] videographer from their phone. And by
[06:27] that I mean it was full resolution,
[06:30] 1920x 1080 HD. It seemed very high bit
[06:34] rate. It doesn't have a lot of
[06:35] blockiness or smeariness. It looked like
[06:38] a very good video. Now, when I uh
[06:42] contacted Zeb, I asked him to send me
[06:44] the video and he did and I began to
[06:47] interrogate it in some of the tools that
[06:49] I use and there were some strange things
[06:51] that I observed about it. First of all,
[06:53] >> now we should point out Jason, if our
[06:54] audience is new to you, your background
[06:57] is that you do this for a living. When
[06:59] you you worked in Hollywood, frankly,
[07:01] you worked on major motion pictures in
[07:04] in the visual effects department. So,
[07:05] you know this stuff. I think you said
[07:07] you started using Photoshop when you
[07:08] were like in diapers basically, right?
[07:11] >> 13 years old. Yes. First version of
[07:13] Photoshop that I used was 1.07 and I
[07:16] think it was 1985
[07:19] six something like that. But uh I've
[07:22] been doing digital imaging for a long
[07:24] long time and uh so that's exactly where
[07:27] my expertise lies. And again experts
[07:30] whether they're neurosurgeons, ballistic
[07:33] experts or whatever they're looking at
[07:35] all of this through the lens of
[07:37] distorted digital imagery. So the first
[07:39] step in this evaluation is we need to
[07:41] understand these digital videos and the
[07:43] digital images that we're looking at.
[07:45] So, Zeb sent me this video and uh the
[07:48] first thing I noticed was that it did
[07:50] not open in um QuickTime Player on my
[07:54] Mac when I doubleclicked on it just like
[07:56] a movie from your phone would. And so I
[07:59] started to examine it and I determined I
[08:02] first thought that it was an MEG
[08:06] transport stream, but um upon further
[08:08] interrogation, I've been continuing my
[08:10] investigation since we spoke, I've
[08:13] discovered that it wasn't that. It's an
[08:15] MPEG stream that's encoded in what's
[08:17] called high 10, which is a subset of the
[08:20] H.264
[08:22] protocol. This is not a format that the
[08:25] iPhone creates. The iPhone is capable of
[08:28] making uh high dynamic range videos, but
[08:32] not in this high 10 format. The other
[08:36] thing that I noticed about it is that
[08:37] it's encoded at 20 frames per second. We
[08:41] can see right here it's got a pretty
[08:42] high bit rate, but it's 20 frames per
[08:46] second. And I realize this gets pretty
[08:48] technical, but it's important.
[08:49] >> Normally,
[08:50] >> well, most films, when people see films
[08:52] in a theater, it's usually at 24 frames
[08:54] a second. Um, a lot of phones, you know,
[08:57] you can set it to 30 frames a second or
[08:59] 60 frames a second. 20 though is odd to
[09:02] me.
[09:05] >> You're exactly right. The 24 frames per
[09:07] second frame rate is the cinema frame
[09:09] rate of a movie camera. And so digital
[09:12] cameras that want to mimic cinema
[09:14] cameras can shoot at 24. European
[09:17] television standards are 25. North
[09:20] American television standards are 30.
[09:22] High definition can be 60. But 20 is
[09:25] very unusual. And again, it's a format
[09:27] that the iPhone cannot create. This high
[09:30] 10 meg profile. It's not something that
[09:33] any Android phone. It's not something
[09:36] that any iPhone or action camera or you
[09:40] know consumer proumer camera can create.
[09:44] So I began to investigate this 20 frame
[09:46] per second file and I found these two
[09:49] dots in the video and I highlighted them
[09:52] here in this image. People can see we've
[09:55] got this dot right here. This is a these
[09:58] three dots create a line. And when I
[10:01] started talking to Zeb Boyin about this
[10:03] 20 frame per second video, days later,
[10:06] someone sent him the same video but at
[10:09] 30 frames per second. Now this is where
[10:11] it becomes very important. I was looking
[10:14] at these videos and in order to get a 20
[10:17] frame per second video from a 30 frame
[10:20] per second original, there's a couple of
[10:22] things that you could do. The most
[10:23] obvious would be to sort of slow it
[10:26] down, but then you play it back and
[10:28] you'd notice that the sound is slow, the
[10:30] motion is slow. There'd be certain
[10:32] obvious things that you could see. And
[10:35] these videos did not exhibit those
[10:37] things. Another way you could do it is
[10:38] you could just drop 10 frames every
[10:41] second, but then you'd get this sort of
[10:43] jerky, juttery motion that also wouldn't
[10:45] look natural. And I did not observe
[10:48] that. The other thing you could do is a
[10:50] complex process called optical flow, but
[10:52] that also creates artifacts, and I
[10:54] didn't observe any of that. So, when I
[10:56] was looking at the 30 frames per second
[10:58] video, that's where I found this third
[11:01] dot right here behind Charlie's head.
[11:04] Now, I want to be very careful to not
[11:06] show anything that's going to get us uh
[11:09] dinged on any of the platforms, but I'm
[11:11] going to switch to Adobe After Effects
[11:13] here. And I want to show people what I'm
[11:16] talking about in the difference between
[11:17] the 20 frames per second and the 30
[11:20] frames per second video. So, here we see
[11:22] the projectile right here. This is the
[11:24] second dot that I just showed everybody,
[11:26] and it's headed towards Charlie. Now, my
[11:29] allegation is that this originates in a
[11:31] video that was shot at 240 frames per
[11:33] second. In the 20 frame video, you see
[11:36] when I advance forward, can you guys see
[11:38] that very acute disturbance of his
[11:40] shirt? It almost looks like an invisible
[11:42] hand is pinching the collar and pulling
[11:44] it up. Can you guys see that?
[11:46] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It looks like
[11:48] someone's pinching it. Yeah.
[11:50] >> Yeah. And what I allege is happening
[11:51] right there is that this is a low muzzle
[11:56] velocity projectile. very likely a uh a
[12:01] bullet fired from an air rifle or an air
[12:04] pistol traveling at 500 feet per second
[12:08] and I arrive at that 500 ft per second
[12:10] number because I've applied this scale.
[12:13] Now it would be a complex mathematical
[12:16] problem to actually measure the distance
[12:18] between these dots. But if we begin with
[12:21] the hypothesis that this video was shot
[12:25] at 240 frames per second, that gives us
[12:28] an original that is evenly divisible by
[12:31] 20 and by 30. If we divide a 240 frame
[12:36] video by 12 and use one out of every 12
[12:39] frames, we get an even smooth 20 frames
[12:42] per second. If we take that same 240
[12:45] frame per second video and divide by 8,
[12:48] we get an even smooth 30 frames per
[12:51] second, but we're using one out of every
[12:53] eight or one out of every 12. And that
[12:55] results in a different set of frames
[12:59] being used to make up each video. That's
[13:02] how I got this third dot. But we
[13:04] certainly know, even with my simple
[13:06] mathematical skills, that three dots
[13:08] make a line. And this is a line
[13:11] traveling directly toward Charlie's
[13:13] head. The next frame of the video, he's
[13:16] been hit and it comes out the front of
[13:18] his neck and it catches on the shirt
[13:22] collar. It's lost so much of its kinetic
[13:24] energy traveling through his body that
[13:27] when it hits the shirt collar, it pulls
[13:29] and stretches the shirt quite
[13:31] dramatically. I'm going to switch right
[13:32] now to the 30 frame video. So here we
[13:35] have different frames from the 30 frame
[13:37] video and we see there is there is the
[13:40] third frame of the projectile. It hits
[13:42] him
[13:44] and we see that disruption. Now this is
[13:46] this is recompressed. You can see it's
[13:48] much lower quality, lower bit rate than
[13:50] the 20 frame video. And so now you see a
[13:54] different kind of disruption of the
[13:55] shirt. I think what's happening is this
[13:56] projectile is sort of moving around
[13:59] inside his shirt. It's been caught by
[14:01] the shirt like a net. And now the shirt
[14:03] when the fabric relaxes it goes back
[14:06] down the shirt and it's kind of you know
[14:08] falling out the bottom of his shirt as
[14:11] he's shot. And then in the next frames
[14:13] we see this exit wound out the front of
[14:17] his neck. Remember people the experts
[14:19] are disagreeing. Is this an entry wound
[14:21] or an exit wound? Well, an exit wound
[14:23] from a supersonic rifle round, which has
[14:26] a tremendous amount of kinetic uh
[14:28] energy, would create a big explosive
[14:30] blowout and a lot of material. So, if he
[14:33] was shot from the front, it's pretty
[14:35] implausible by most experts estimation
[14:38] that his spine could stop a bullet. Now,
[14:41] a lot of people say, "Oh, bullets do
[14:43] strange things when they enter the
[14:45] body." And again, I don't have the
[14:47] expertise to personally evaluate that.
[14:49] I'm taking their word for it. But what I
[14:52] believe is happening is this low muzzle
[14:54] velocity projectile is hitting him just
[14:57] below the base of his skull. And this is
[15:00] where we can answer Dr. Martin's
[15:02] question. It hits just below the base of
[15:04] his skull where it damages his spinal
[15:07] cord causing that involuntary reaction.
[15:10] I forget the medical term that he used,
[15:12] but it's it's severe brain trauma that
[15:14] he's talking about. And that happens
[15:15] instantly causing Charlie's arms to go
[15:18] up and his fists to clench. It pops out
[15:21] the front of his throat, goes down the
[15:23] shirt, and he's immediately dead because
[15:25] it's ruptured his corateed artery and
[15:27] his jugular vein and and just to get to
[15:30] the speed that I've derived. So I've
[15:32] introduced this arbitrary scale and it
[15:36] doesn't matter if these are feet,
[15:37] inches, meters, these are units per
[15:40] video frame. And what we see here is we
[15:44] know that Charlie Kirk is about 6'4 and
[15:47] he's seated. So, we're seeing about
[15:50] three feet from seat to the top of his
[15:52] head. And I asked Chat GPT, if a
[15:55] projectile were fired by a gun that
[15:58] could travel 500 ft per second, which is
[16:02] the muzzle velocity of something that
[16:04] I've found out about called a uh a B and
[16:09] W M50. I'm told this is the most
[16:13] powerful air pistol available. And this
[16:16] thing launches projectiles at
[16:19] approximately 500 ft per second. So if a
[16:22] projectile was shot out of that gun or
[16:25] something very similar towards Charlie
[16:27] Kirk from close range, it could
[16:29] certainly be fatal. And Chachi PT tells
[16:32] me at 500 ft per second, if photographed
[16:36] at 240 frames per second, the projectile
[16:40] would move approximately 2.08 08 ft in
[16:45] 240th of a second. And these three dots
[16:48] are very close to equidistant.
[16:51] Given that Charlie, we're looking at
[16:53] about 3 ft of Charlie here. It looks to
[16:55] me like 2 to 2 and 1/2 ft between each
[16:57] of these. And this is the empirical
[17:01] evidence that this is a projectile fired
[17:04] at Charlie. Now, before we get questions
[17:06] from people, people are going to say to
[17:08] me, "But wait a minute, Jason. I've
[17:10] looked at that 20 frames per second
[17:11] video, and there's a problem because it
[17:14] looks like this projectile is moving
[17:16] away from Charlie. This one appears
[17:18] first in the sequence, and this one
[17:21] appears next. So, it's moving in
[17:24] reverse. And we can actually even look
[17:26] at that. We'll go back to After Effects
[17:28] over here for a second. And let's look
[17:30] at our 20 frame per second video." So,
[17:32] we can see as we zoom out, Charlie's
[17:35] been hit and here is that first position
[17:38] of the projectile. If I reverse the
[17:40] video one frame, there's the projectile
[17:43] there. As we move forward, that
[17:46] projectile appears to be moving back.
[17:49] But here's where it's important to
[17:50] understand video compression technology.
[17:53] Meg uses interframe compression, meaning
[17:58] it's not just measuring pixels within
[18:00] the image. Here I'm sitting in a
[18:02] simulated room and my hands are moving,
[18:05] my mouth is moving, but nothing in the
[18:07] background is moving. So the video
[18:09] compressor that's sending my video to
[18:11] you over the internet is not updating
[18:14] these pixels around here in the ceiling
[18:16] or in this background image of the
[18:18] Empire State Building there. None of
[18:19] that stuff is updating from frame to
[18:22] frame. My hands are, my mouth is. When
[18:25] we introduce something into a motion
[18:27] video, particularly one that's been
[18:29] transcoded and recompressed as this one
[18:31] has, as evidenced by that uh that file I
[18:35] showed earlier with a 20 frame per
[18:37] second and giving us all the information
[18:40] about uh the file. This has been
[18:42] recompressed to a format that could not
[18:44] have been produced in an iPhone. What
[18:47] happens is while the video is encoded,
[18:50] there is an algorithm that tracks moving
[18:52] pixels. And when it's my hand or it's a
[18:57] car or something moving along, it can
[18:59] track that very easily. But when it is a
[19:01] high contrast, very small item like
[19:04] these white dots, essentially white dots
[19:08] presented against dark backgrounds, the
[19:10] encoder can become confused and these
[19:13] things can be displayed temporally out
[19:16] of order. And I allege that that is
[19:19] what's happening. that this dot, if we
[19:23] could get the original 240 frame file,
[19:25] we would see it first here, then here,
[19:29] then here, then it hits the back of his
[19:31] skull to flex downward approximately 19
[19:34] degrees, comes out his throat after
[19:36] destroying his spinal cord and killing
[19:38] him, gets caught in the shirt, goes down
[19:41] the front of the shirt, and that's it.
[19:44] Oh, sorry, one more thing before we go
[19:45] to questions because people are going to
[19:46] say, "No, Jason. acoustic analysis. We
[19:49] have crack thump. How did that
[19:51] supersonic sound get there? An air gun
[19:54] doesn't make supersonic sound. And I
[19:56] want to be clear, everything I'm saying
[19:58] is my opinion. Clayton and Natalie don't
[20:00] necessarily support anything that I'm
[20:02] saying. And I'm not implicating this
[20:05] company or any other company. I'm just
[20:07] demonstrating these products as examples
[20:09] of technology that exists. There's
[20:12] something called digital trigger
[20:14] technologies that sells the Digi
[20:16] Trigger. And this is an item that you
[20:18] can put into your gun. It replaces an AR
[20:21] style trigger. And inside this handle,
[20:23] it has a digital programmable component.
[20:27] And again, I'm not an expert, but I've
[20:29] watched videos made by the inventor of
[20:31] this product. And he says you could
[20:34] program it if you're a sniper to pull
[20:36] the trigger in a certain way. I guess a
[20:38] light touch for a sniper. You can also
[20:41] program it so one pull of the trigger
[20:43] fires the but the bullets twice or one
[20:46] pull of the trigger fires continuously.
[20:49] The developer of this product in the
[20:51] videos cautions people to follow the law
[20:53] in the state that they're in. But the
[20:55] point is that digital trigger allows you
[20:58] to program the gun to do a lot of
[20:59] things. Now what I am an expert in from
[21:02] doing visual effects like bullet time in
[21:04] the matrix where lots of cameras are
[21:06] programmed to fire sequentially and very
[21:09] precise timing or in 3D cinematographer
[21:13] uh cinematography where cameras need to
[21:15] fire very precisely. I know if you have
[21:18] one digitally triggered thing, you can
[21:21] very precisely time two things to be
[21:24] simultaneously triggered. So, if someone
[21:27] was in this tunnel behind Charlie while
[21:30] he was being shot, and I don't know if
[21:32] people have seen that video, but there
[21:34] was a tunnel, sort of an underpass there
[21:37] behind where he was seated, and uh if
[21:40] someone were standing in that tunnel
[21:42] with the air rifle, they could pull a
[21:46] digital synchronized trigger and it
[21:49] could simultaneously fire
[21:52] a supersonic rifle on the building far
[21:54] away. Now, I'm not saying that this
[21:56] person is the shooter, but here we are
[21:58] looking at the other side of the tunnel.
[22:00] This is Charlie's tent over here. He's
[22:04] seated right here to the left of this
[22:06] woman's hat. And this is the guy who
[22:09] removed the SD card from the camera
[22:12] right behind Charlie. Everybody else is
[22:14] running for their lives. He's up here
[22:16] perched in a spot where I don't know if
[22:18] you could get the angle on Charlie from
[22:20] here with a rifle, an air rifle or an
[22:23] air pistol, but if you could, you'd be
[22:26] hidden from sight from the crowd. The
[22:28] sound of the air pistol would be quite
[22:30] hidden. And there's one final thing that
[22:32] I want to say. I know I'm running my
[22:33] mouth a lot, but a lot of people heard
[22:35] this research and they said, "Oh, Jason
[22:37] is saying that Charlie got shot from
[22:39] behind. that means he got shot by a
[22:42] modified camera that was uh shooting
[22:45] bullets at him. And that is not correct
[22:48] because here we see the camera behind
[22:49] Charlie and we can see that the line
[22:52] from its lens doesn't line up with the
[22:54] trajectory of those bullets. It really
[22:56] doesn't line up at all. But
[22:59] >> what it uh does introduce is the
[23:01] possibility that a targeting camera
[23:04] could have been used. The video feed
[23:06] from that camera could have been fed to
[23:09] something like, and again, I'm not
[23:11] implicating the Longshot company, but
[23:13] these guys make a bunch of Wi-Fi cameras
[23:16] that you put down range near your
[23:18] target, and then you sit with your iPad
[23:20] when you don't have clear visibility to
[23:22] the target and you aim your gun and you
[23:25] shoot at the target.
[23:32] >> It's remarkable. Well, I mean, it's I
[23:34] have so many questions. I know our
[23:35] audience has so many questions. Um, so,
[23:37] but I guess to bottom line it, you don't
[23:40] believe that he was shot from the front
[23:42] based on the video evidence that you're
[23:44] saying here. You've put this out there
[23:45] for anyone that wants to debate you. Has
[23:47] anyone come forward that says they want
[23:49] to try to refute what you found here?
[23:52] >> No. And in fact, when I started
[23:54] publishing this on my uh exac account,
[23:57] JG_CST,
[23:59] I put a challenge up. And this is not a
[24:02] bet. This is not a sweep stakes. I'm
[24:04] just saying just like I would hire a
[24:06] freelance photographer and pay them for
[24:08] their photography, I'm willing to pay
[24:10] $100 to anyone who can refute the facts
[24:12] that I've just laid out. And X has
[24:15] started putting this content warning
[24:17] saying that this is sensitive content.
[24:19] And now everything I post gets this
[24:22] sensitive content warning and people
[24:24] can't see whatever it is that I'm
[24:27] posting. I even posted a thing saying
[24:29] that they've removed one of the
[24:31] sensitive content posts and that got a
[24:33] sensitive content warning. I'm talking
[24:35] here about H264 video and that's got a
[24:39] sensitive content warning. So, I think
[24:41] this information I can't say why, but
[24:44] it's being suppressed. People don't want
[24:46] to address it. And again, anyone who
[24:49] wants to refute any of the measurable
[24:51] facts, these are empirical facts that
[24:54] I've just laid out. Everything I've
[24:55] showed you, it's an it's an existing
[24:58] technology. I'm not talking about some
[25:00] imaginary plasma powered ballistic drone
[25:04] that came out of nowhere and shot
[25:06] Charlie Kirk. I'm not talking about
[25:08] bullets ricocheting off of bulletproof
[25:10] vests that he obviously wasn't wearing.
[25:12] I've laid out a very detailed
[25:15] explanation of what happened. I've shown
[25:17] examples of technologies that could have
[25:20] been used or certainly other units of
[25:23] the same capability could have been used
[25:25] and I believe this explains everything
[25:28] that can't be explained. the nature of
[25:31] the wound, why he had that traumatic
[25:33] brain injury. Uh, this video being shot
[25:37] at 240 frames per second, someone is
[25:40] going to have an image of the individual
[25:43] who made that video because there is um
[25:46] there is this uh frame in the video
[25:50] where we see a photographer here. This
[25:53] guy looks to be a news photographer to
[25:55] me. He looks like he's got a press pass.
[25:57] He doesn't look like a college student.
[25:59] He's got a big professionallook still
[26:01] camera. He's taking pictures. Again, I'm
[26:03] not implicating this individual in any
[26:05] wrongdoing. I'm just saying I expect
[26:08] that this person would have a very
[26:10] highresolution image of whoever it is
[26:13] that took this video that I allege was
[26:15] photographed at 240 frames per second
[26:18] and deceptively presented to us at 20
[26:21] frames per second.
[26:25] Jason Goodman, will you stick around for
[26:27] our Rumble Premium today and answer a
[26:29] few questions from our audience? Um, if
[26:31] anyone has a lot I see a lot of
[26:33] questions coming in. Um, so if you if
[26:35] you wouldn't mind, I've got some
[26:36] questions. I know people on our staff
[26:37] have some questions and I see the
[26:39] thousands of you watching right now
[26:41] probably have a few questions. So, if
[26:42] you would for a few minutes hang out.
[26:44] We're just going to go over to Rumble
[26:45] Premium here in a moment. So, just hang
[26:47] with us, Jason, if you'd be so kind. But
[26:49] first, thanks to all of you for
[26:51] subscribing and being a part of our show
[26:53] here. We really really appreciate it. Um
[26:55] again, we want to present all ideas to
[26:57] you and you guys uh make the make the
[26:59] you know you take the information and
[27:01] run with it, make your own
[27:02] determinations on it. Um we still don't
[27:05] have to my mind we still don't have the
[27:06] medical examiner's report. I know this
[27:09] can take up to 3 months sometimes. Uh
[27:11] there's many cases where it's 6 weeks uh
[27:14] you know two months 3 months before you
[27:17] get a medical examiner's report. When
[27:19] will we see that? So, can we I think
[27:23] that will be hopefully if it's an honest
[27:25] medical examiner's report. We'll finally
[27:27] put to bed the answer of whether or not
[27:29] this was a 306 rifle round uh that hit
[27:32] Charlie Kirk. Um hopefully we'll answer
[27:34] a lot of questions. I hope. Um so, we'll
[27:36] be waiting on that. Um but thank you
[27:38] guys for being a part of our show. I
[27:40] should point out that we do have our
[27:41] redacted store. If you'd like to come
[27:43] over and support independent media, you
[27:44] can do that by going to
[27:45] redactedstore.com.
[27:47] Check out our new wares that are up
[27:49] there right now, including all of our
[27:51] fall paraphernalia. Everything heading
[27:53] into the cold winter months, new
[27:55] hoodies, new shirts, and our brand new
[27:59] uh hoodie that just rolled out, which is
[28:01] our don't tread on me hoodie, which is
[28:04] my new my new favorite. I should point
[28:06] out they run a little small. So, if you
[28:08] normally wear a large, like I usually
[28:11] wear a large, you probably want to order
[28:13] an extra large um in the hoodie in the
[28:15] hoodie sizes. they just run a little bit
[28:17] small. Um, so check those out.
[28:19] redactedstore.com
[28:20] is the place to go to do all of that.
[28:22] So, we are going to move over to Rumble
[28:24] Premium. Again, the whole show is free.
[28:27] Um, but we want to support our free
[28:29] speech friends over at Rumble and just
[28:31] going to hang out for a few minutes for
[28:32] anybody who's a Rumble Premium member.
[28:34] Come on over. The water is warm over
[28:36] there. Do we have a like how do people
[28:38] come over there? Um, David, what's the
[28:40] URL in case people want to sign up for
[28:42] Rumble Premium?
[28:45] Um,
[28:47] anybody? Yeah, the Rumble Premium URL is
[28:52] >> Sorry, I didn't have it queued up.
[28:54] >> Sorry.
[28:55] Just curious if you guys know the URL.
[28:58] >> Sorry, man. I I have to mute when I'm
[29:00] doing the the switch so I can hear the
[29:03] stream. Um,
[29:05] yeah. So, the
[29:10] >> All right. Well, we'll figure that out.
[29:12] But anyway, hey, come on over to Rumble
[29:14] and uh just go to rumble.compremium,
[29:18] I think, is what it is. I don't know.
[29:19] We'll find out. Um if anyone knows, let
[29:21] me know.
[29:22] >> Yes, that is correct. I I just queued it
[29:23] up. It's rumble.com/premium.
[29:26] >> rumble.com/premium.
[29:27] All right. I think I think David had a
[29:30] stroke. I'm not really sure what
[29:31] happened there. Um rumble.com/premium
[29:33] is the place to go. Come on over there
[29:35] and check us out. We're going to hang
[29:37] out for a few minutes with Jason and
[29:38] answer any questions you have. So, thank
[29:40] you guys for watching. And we'll see you
[29:41] back here live on
