Evidence Shows Charlie Kirk Was Shot from Behind – Jason Goodman on REDACTED

[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