and sirens blaring. New York is pretty nice. This is what I love about New York. You know, you can walk down the street and enjoy the day. But I want to talk about evidence breakthroughs in the Charlie Kirk assassination. Obviously, everybody is still really interested in that. Everybody knows I've been running the evidence bounty. The evidence bounty is one of the best ideas I've had in a long time. And thanks to everybody who's been contributing to the bounty, it's up to $3,350. I think that's a lot of money. There's another set of people who have uh uh seemingly attempted to duplicate my effort. Talk about that in a minute. But don't forget, if you want to contribute and boost the bounty, you can use cryptocurrency or your credit card. You go to crowdsource thetruth.org and you can help boost the evidence bounty. It's already working better than I could have anticipated or I guess doing exactly what I wanted it to do. The purpose was to provoke evidence to come to come forward to challenge my thesis. And like anything, I just think if you financially incentivize something, it has a tendency to make it, you know, it incentivizes it. So, we had an evidence breakthrough. We had uh been looking for weeks actually at this evidence video of Charlie Kirk getting shot, which was originally presented to me by Zeb Boyin. Everybody knows the video I'm talking about. And the breakthrough that we've had now comes from our friend Tyler Young. He's Dark Matters on X. People should follow him there. We're going to be doing a space, an X space later tonight at 8:00 p.m. talking about this evidence that he has obtained. It's quite interesting. Now, I had a conversation with Tyler yesterday because this was good. This was I I really have to compliment him. It was one of the best >> diplomacy phone conversations I've had in a long time, maybe ever. I mean, it started out with someone who was frankly quite adversarial. He had basically sent me this evidence. He carefully read the uh terms on crowdsource the truth.org, which I definitely encourage anybody who wants to participate. That's why they're there. Read them so that you can understand them. Whether you want to >> participate in attempting to claim the bounty >> or to fund the bounty, you should read the terms so that there's no misunderstandings. And if there are, you can ask me any questions you want. Uh people can follow me on xj cstt. I leave the DM open over there. You can email me truth@crowdsource thetruth.org. Keep in mind I get a ton of messages. I try to stay on top of it. But if you have any questions, you can ask them. Anyway, Tyler shouldn't be doing this. You got to take them to the park. Don't ride those things on the Highline. The uh Tyler submitted his evidence along with a screen capture. Oh, I should have brought the screen capture. He had a screen capture of the metadata screen from an iPhone that gave certain facts about the video file. Facts that remember Samir MSI refused to share. >> The frame rate, >> yes, >> the data rate, the recording date. Now people will say, "Oh, Jason, can you detect if metadata has been altered? I mean yes and no. This was not original metadata. It was a screen capture representative of a portion of the metadata and it indicated that the video was uh coming from a Google photos library. So, it wasn't from the original user's iPhone, but through the verification process that Tyler agreed to participate in, I determined that I do believe he sent the original phone file. And this was super important. I I'm It's an excellent bit of work by Tyler. He didn't want to tell me who provided it to him, and I'm all right with that. You know, sort of his right to protect the source from a journalism standpoint. But through talking with him and interrogating the file, I was able to determine, I would say, with a high degree of confidence that this does appear to be the original phone file. And the thing is, it didn't debunk my thesis that Charlie Kirk was shot from behind by a 500t per second projectile fired from somewhere inside that tunnel. But it did clarify a lot of things and give us tremendous insight into that piece of evidence. So let's talk about that basically. So here we go. Let's look at this. This is a screen capture of the video opened in the QuickTime player. And you can see right there the name of the file was changed but it's a 211 megabyte file 10 and a half megabits per second. HEVC. The audio is 48 kHz. 10 bit >> Dolby vision. That's critical cuz people are going to say, "Oh, Jason, it's 30 frames per second. You were saying it was 240." Do we see that there to the 30 frames? Did I not scroll? There it is. 29.99 frames per second. >> So, oh Jason, you said it was 240 frames per second. And this was an extensive part of the phone call with Tyler. And when he got on the phone with me, he was convinced that this evidence was uh you know, what did I say? Verified. He you know I on the terms on my website it says you need to submit verifiable evidence. And I think it is inarguable that when something is categorized as verifiable, that's one thing. And then once it's verified, the past tense, it's been verified. Like in other words, I don't know that the existence of God is verifiable. It's something people have faith in. But in other words, we could sort of verify >> that this is a plant or whatever it is. We could take a picture of it, take it to an expert. They could test the cells and verify what kind of plant it is. We could establish a verification process. Certain things you can't do that with, right? Anyway, the point is the statement on the website, he raised a good point. It was arguably vague to some extent, but that's what I'm saying. if you have any questions about any aspect of the evidence bounty, definitely ask before you participate. So, when he and I got through that, >> and again, I want to stress the phone call ended, we're on very good terms. I would say Tyler and I were doing this Xpace tonight because I have gained respect for this guy. He's an intelligent guy and he did excellent work obtaining this evidence. We had a little misunderstanding at the outset, but we cleared it up. So, he ultimately agreed that something being verifiable doesn't mean that you just upload it and it's verified. I had some questions about this screen capture of the metadata, namely the Google Drive that it came from, the change to the file name. So, I mean, again, from the strictest sense, it's not the original file from the phone. It's a copy of the original file. He and I spoke about how, you know, the cops and a court and all that sort of stuff, if you went into court >> with this evidence, >> the person who recorded it would have to raise their right hand, swear under penalty of perjury that they recorded this video and that it's a true and correct copy of the video and then the judge would say, "Okay, enter it into evidence." And that would be, you know, considered authenticated. Again, I'm not an attorney, but people hear this term hearsay. What they're talking about with hearsay is statements that are made outside of court and not under oath. So, when you go into court to authenticate evidence, that's what you're doing. And of course, I'm not a court. We are the court of public opinion to a certain extent. And I've established this verification process. And as I said, I'm satisfied. This does appear to be a true and correct copy of the original video. And I say that because like I just showed everybody, when you open it in the QuickTime player, it's longer than any other version we've seen before. This is uh this is a version that I got. Oh, I'll talk about this excellent resource, too. This is a different version. See, it's called number seven. The file name is 7.MPP4. The audio has been transcoded to 44.1 kHz. I don't know why the video is much shorter. So, the file length is far less. It's retained the original frame rate and it's still in Dolby Vision. We got to talk about that. That requires a a certain amount of discussion on this video and that's the main reason I'm doing this video. But that number seven file, what's super interesting is Tyler sent me his evidence yesterday. Hey, I woke up in the morning and saw it and said, "Okay, I've received your submission. Please get in touch so I can call you up and verify this evidence." >> Now, what I didn't realize is until today, the day before yesterday, >> Matthew Bowden, the audio freak, >> great guy doing excellent research. People should follow him and see our video together. Matthew sent me a link. I've posted it on X. People can follow me there and and see the link. But this is a link to something on archive.org which has more copies of uh eyewitness videos from the Charlie Kirk assassination than anything I've seen anywhere. So, anybody can go and download this, you know. There it is. There's number Whoops. There's number seven. You can see then look at that. It's been on this archive since 7:00 in the morning the next day, September 11th, this 49 or 40, what is it? 45. What does it say right there? 45 megabyte version. So, it's somehow truncated. I'm not sure exactly how that file was made. Maybe just clipped in the iPhone and uploaded from there. that would seem to make the most sense as far as retaining the Dolby uh HDR. The Dolby Vision format is unique to the iPhone. I meant to look this up. I'm pretty sure the iPhone was the very first video camera to be able to shoot HDR. This Dolby Vision HDR, it was a big deal. A function of the uh What's all that blinking now? Can we see the Statue of Liberty from here? >> Yes. This is not Dolby HDR. This app is not capable of that. And YouTube and X and all that are not capable of that. But I think it was the iPhone 14 that introduced something that Apple calls the quad pixel sensor. And somehow this enabled realtime HDR video which was I mean crazy certainly at the time and it's a it's a pretty impressive bit of computational photography. Let's talk about it. What is HDR? I'm glad you asked. It's going to be another one of these complicated topics that I'm going to try to disambiguate for everybody and it's going to explain how a 30 frames per second video was photographed at 240 frames per second. So, this is yet another concept separate from frame rate, separate from exposure time. It's got to do with high dynamic range. Well, what does that mean? Okay, let's take a look at this scene right here. So, we've got a dark area under this building. And as I walk through here, we've got some light areas over there poking through the windows and the sky. Now, I'm using a very current iPhone to make this video, so it inherently has good dynamic range, but you can see as the exposure looks normal inside here, everything outside looks super bright. It's just basically almost white. Now, let's try something here. See, as I zoom in, it changes the exposure. You see? And now everything looks normal. The buildings. As I zoom back out, it's very dark in here. It changes the exposure again. Now, the way it's doing that is by adjusting that exposure time, the amount of time the electronic sensor is being exposed to light. 1/ 1,000th of a second. 1 2000th of a second will allow half as much light. 1/4,000th of a second, half as much light again. So, the camera can detect when it sees a majority of the screen being filled with bright areas and it will adapt. See, it's it's mostly exposing for my face right now. If I touch this area of the screen, I think it will adapt the exposure. Yes, you can see. Will it do it? Uh, no. Sorry. For this, I have to turn on I don't want to mess with this too much. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. I got to put it into manual exposure. So, now as I reduce it, see, now the sky has detail and I look very dark. Let's put it back into auto. Okay. So, that's what I'm talking about with exposure time there. And the reason why that looks super bright when I look normal when there's a huge discrepancy in the light within the frame is because of the dynamic range, the amount of brightest brights and darkest darks that the camera can capture and reproduce. It's limited. It's an electronic device. It doesn't work like your eyes. And of course the screen of the phone and all these different medium that we use to look at the images. It's not the real world. These are all mechanical and electronic and photochemical inventions that have been created to simulate things and capture images and they rely on technology that has capabilities and limitations. So when we want to use that sort of imagery as evidence of what happened in reality, it's critically important that we understand the function of the technology used to create that imagery. Something that Chris Martinson refuses to accept. I don't understand it. To me, that makes him not smart because there are people who are intelligent but not that educated. And then there are people who are unintelligent but educated and they think they're smart. That's Chris Martinson. He's an idiot as far as I can tell. But anyway, what is HDR? So, what high dynamic range attempts to do? You see, I had to change the exposure manually to get it to expose properly for the sky or my face. And obviously we're making a choice there. Either I'm dark and the sky looks normal or I look normal and the sky looks too bright to see any detail. What HDR does is it will rapidly capture a succession of images and combine them into one. It'll take overexposed and underexposed and normally exposed images and it'll create what's called a luminance map. This was I don't know if it was invented by this guy, but I first heard about it back in the late 90s, an electronic imaging researcher by the name of Paul Debec. Super nice guy, by the way. I became friends with him when I was living in Los Angeles. He was the head at that point. I think he was at ILM and then he went to USC. He was the head of the advanced imaging lab at USC. But he did all kinds of experiments and developments in this uh radiance modeling where instead of just taking a picture, this guy is like mapping the light of a scene. And once he has that radiance map, he can do all kinds of things with it. Render 3D objects, do super realistic visual effects with that. And uh he like I said, he's this guy's a super genius. I I say he's a friend. I haven't spoken to him in several years, but he and I have been out to dinner. I've been to his office and stuff. As I said, he was familiar with my 3D work. When I was doing that stuff, some of these highulutin visual effects guys were pretty interested in it. But that is how that works. And with the iPhone, when you're shooting 30 frames per second in that Dolby Vision mode, which uh the excellent work by Tyler Young revealed, that video was recorded in Dolby Vision, not the slow motion mode, but Dolby Vision also utilizes the 240 frame per second capability of the iPhone. For every 30 frames, for each of those frames, you've got a 1/30th of a second interval that's captured. And the iPhone in the HDR mode is taking eight exposures to create a radiance map of the scene. Up to eight exposures depending on the lighting conditions and other factors that are decided in real time by the software in the phone. It takes up to eight pictures. And I believe on that super bright day with bright highlights. Remember I said to Zeb or somebody, this looks like an iPhone. I can tell by the blooming in the highlights. The fact that it preserved detail in the highlights, it just looked to me like an iPhone. And I've looked at a lot of images from a lot of different kinds of cameras. And also remember that 20 frame per second video that we first got from Zeb. One of the anomalies that I detected was that it was encoded in the 10bit high HDR format, which is not the format of the Dolby Vision on the iPhone and is not a format that the iPhone can create. So, somebody again fairly sophisticated it would seem transcoded that video. I don't know why. The other super amazing thing about the evidence that Tyler has uncovered is that it's the first version of the video that I saw that has all three projectiles in the video. Remember the 30 frame version that I got from Zeb? That only had the last projectile because it was transcoded to such a low bit rate that was like a 30 megabyte file. It smeared out those other two dots. That's why I put together the three dots from the two separate videos and began to surmise that maybe this >> came from a 240 frame per second video. Now, technically it did. And it took a little while of explaining on the phone with Tyler, and I'm not criticizing him. I acknowledge that this is a complicated subject, and I didn't have that HDR video that I created last night to explain it to everybody. It's a complicated subject, particularly if you're not well-versed in digital photography. I've been in this area literally since it was new. I messed around with the first commercial digital cameras that were available. Kodak had a big expensive one. Apple had that quick take 100. There were a few Sony, Mavas and stuff like that. And then when RED cameras came out and we started having these high dynamic range modes, that's the thing. Red could do high dynamic range, but not in real time. Red was all about capturing huge amounts of data and then processing it after the fact. The thing that's amazing about the iPhone that maybe people don't realize, you've got this massively parallel processing multi-core essentially superco computer in your pocket. So they attach a camera to it and suddenly there's a lot of things that you can do with it. And this type of computational photography including real-time HDR video is one of the things. But again, it's a technology. it works in a certain way and it has failure modes and it has things that confuse it. So that's how we got to the 240 frames per second. And by the way, we saw up there I had a limited amount of choices for exposure time that I could select up there because it's so bright. The camera was defaulting to already a very short exposure time just to get the proper exposure. So that's why the bullet is frozen in air. short exposure time, multiple exposures per frame, 30 frames per second. And because the HDR function doesn't care about the temporal position of a highlight detail, it's just preserving the brightness and the color and the luminosity. It's building this luminance map. I don't know, and this isn't published, if it puts any kind of temporal priority on any one of the captures in terms of putting them in order. In fact, I don't think it does. It wouldn't. They're all combined. But I don't think that that's the reason why the frames appear out of order. I still go back to my meg explanation as to why those frames appear out of order. And again, Zeb said, "Oh, I think you're granting too much." What the hell are you talking about? This is from his video vocabulary of bleed frames. And you know, I mean, again, it's like if I drop a rock and it hits the ground and I explain that that's due to gravity. Can we verify gravity? I don't know that I personally have the ability to verify gravity. But it was a hypothesis that somebody formed and I think Isaac Newton or whoever and physicists forever have challenged that hypothesis and decided that that's what it is. So you might tell me well I don't believe in gravity but that doesn't mean it's not the way it works. So with meg again I did not invent this notion of birectional temporal prediction. It refers to a video compression technique where two or more reference pictures occurring both before and after the current picture are employed to generate candidate predictions that are then combined to form the final prediction. So that is what I'm saying. when you have a super fastm moving high contrast object and here are some sample frames. Not super fast moving. It's good for things like cars and airplanes that move at pretty normal observable speeds as it drives past this, you know, the capital building or whatever that is. The meg encoder is looking at the current frame, the previous frame, the next frame, and it's comparing what is going on, and it's predicting the motion of the item. When it's moving at a relatively slow and constant speed, those predictions are very accurate. When you have an unusually fastm moving extremely small thing, the prediction can fail. And that is what I'm saying is happening in the image that creates the illusion of the projectile moving away. It's not moving away. It's moving towards him. And we'll go into this more tonight on the Xpace, but I'm trying to illustrate this as clearly as I can for people. Now, there's another exciting evidence breakthrough. So, this this was from uh I don't know if this is a breakthrough. Like I said, all this stuff has basically been sitting there since September 11th. I don't know. I mean, it's weird, right? Matthew, he's there in England sitting in his audio studio and he found this and sent it to me. There's literally millions of people who have been looking at the various videos I've been doing about this for the past month and nobody sent it to me until 3 days ago or whatever it was >> in Ashley. But that evidence archive actually contained the video, a portion of the video. What Tyler got was much better because what Tyler got is over 2 minutes long. This thing is 40 seconds or something. No, less than 40 seconds. It's 40 megabytes. Tyler got like a like a like a 211 megabyte file. It's very much appears to be the original file from the phone. It'll be up to him if he reveals who gave it to him or not. I don't believe it would be Samir Masi. And if it is Samir Masi who gave it to him, I don't understand why Samir wouldn't give it to me and why he was lying either inside the building pretending to be surprised that Charlie Kirk got shot or lying about having photographed the thing. I don't get it. Samir Mossi makes very little sense. I don't know why anybody would want to lie about their involvement with such a critical piece of evidence in a murder, but whatever. Samir is a strange guy. Anyway, point is that evidence was sitting in there along with this. This is the best video I've seen of the van door opening. And I've done a little blowup. So, the right side of the screen is a blowup. The left side of the screen is the original size. Let's watch this. >> Do you know how many mass there have been in America over the last 10 years? Counting or not counting gang violence. Great. >> Sorry. Let me run it again without the I want to run it again without the crowd source the truth logo there right on top of the thing. And people probably want to see that again. Anyway, look at the van door opens the moment before Charlie is shot. >> Do you know how many massacre there have been in America over the last 10 years? counting or not counting gang violence. Great. >> So, I blurred him out so people don't see anything disturbing there. I should have mentioned that before I showed it. >> The point about you get a clue. >> As I finish about me and you, >> coffee DJ's a different one. I remember the first day we met. >> I don't know what's going on. This is one of these fancy Starbucks. >> Now, it's kind of warm. It's a beautiful day. But I mean, did people see that? What's interesting is we have a very clear view of at least a portion of that gravel area behind the tunnel on that video of the van door opening. And I didn't see any activity back there. You also have a pretty clear view into the back of the van as the shot is fired. Doesn't look like there's anybody in there. I don't know. >> It's strange. And then there's one other this is I don't think anybody has seen this other than Ken Silva who put me in touch with this guy and we're going to do an interview with him next week. Ken and I will do an interview with him. Uh this guy was an eyewitness and he was right up in the second row. Not going to show his video because he wants to show that. But this is a still frame. Look at how close he was to Charlie on his 8K Samsung phone. And we can see the camera and the audio thing there behind Charlie Dan flood. And look, there's the whole gravel area. You know, it does look like you might have been able to get a shot on Charlie from somewhere back there. Uh it's hard to tell, but this is, you know, yet another angle on that. It's possible. I don't know. We'll we'll ask this eyewitness, but that's a little bit too specific of a question. Maybe I don't know if he's going to know or remember if he could see the end of the tunnel there. By the way, this guy, we'll go into detail with him when Ken and I interview him and people should follow Ken Silva on X at JD_cashless and go to headlineusa.com. Ken does tremendous work. He got in touch with this eyewitness and the eyewitness told me that he heard the sound of blood spraying out. I get emails from people like, "Oh, this is fake. Charlie Kirk went down a trapoor and he's still alive. This is all fake." I That seems stupid to me. I don't think that's what happened. But all right, whatever. People can think whatever kind of stupid stuff they want. Some people, they're like, "I know. Charlie Kirk's not even dead. Send me the money." That is again, that's not how it works. And I gota I got to praise Tyler Young again because look, I get it. There's a certain amount of skepticism and maybe people even dislike me from seeing me on the internet and seeing some of the things that uh George's brother and other malicious individuals have published about me. I don't know. But there's a certain amount of skepticism I think that any reasonable person has of a stranger. And Tyler initially, you know, he resisted. He was like, "Oh, you're not going to pay the money no matter what." And I said, "Look, I will pay the money if someone can disprove the thesis that Charlie Kirk was shot from behind by a projectile moving approximately 500 ft per second that came from somewhere in that tunnel or through that tunnel from the other side. It's really what it seems like to me." And I say that because we have those images on video and people say it's moving backwards. I addressed this with Tyler on the phone. It took a long time to get through that as well. If it's moving backwards, where did it come from? If it's fired from in front of Charlie, we have all this space in front of him in many, many video frames before we see it flying. Why isn't it picked up at all coming from the other direction? If it originated from the back of his skull, what causes it to shoot straight up in a straight line at a constant speed? It doesn't make sense to me. Then people say, "Oh, they're not in a perfect line." Well, okay. Now that we have what appears to be the original video, we can see even more details around the projectile. And the two at the outer edge of the three are both imaged over essentially black backgrounds, very high contrast backgrounds. The one in the middle is over kind of a gray wall and there's these sort of darker lines around it that are absolutely meg encoding artifacts where that's the intraframe, you know, the macro blocking around it. And that would seem to have some effect on how the shape of it is represented. By the way, it's not a huge shift. It's like a pixel. It's essentially in a straight line. And I mean, again, the meg encoding on this file, the original meg encoding on the file happens in the phone. So the phone takes these eight frames in a 30th of a second. It puts it into some sort of memory buffer in the phone, does real time processing on it. Like I said, the the phone is capable of like trillions of operations per second. It's a multi-core parallel process. I mean, it literally has the computing power of a supercomput from a decade or two ago. Type of stuff that would take a silicon graphics, you know, an array of computers or a room filled with computers, the phone can do in real time. I know it's amazing, but it can do it. A whatever or M whatever processor inside the phone is a very modern multi-core parallel processing architecture and it's doing all this processing. So eight of these images in less than a 30th of a second are encoded into this high dynamic range video frame. 30 of those high dynamic range video frames are encoded into an MEG long gop HEVC high efficiency video coding meg stream and that is what gets saved on your phone. All the other stuff gets thrown away 30th of a second after the phone is done processing it because otherwise it's too much information for the phone to store. Right? When you buy your iPhone, you decide if you're going to have 256 gigabytes or uh 500 GB or a terabyte. And you pay more for that. That's the storage in the phone. When you save a video, >> it's the MPEG video stream that's being saved. So, you don't want to fill up the phone. Anyway, this is how this stuff works. And the other thing is that supports the hypothesis. We have other videos from other angles that show things that support the hypothesis that he was first hit in the back of the head. The other video that I got the other day, which uh Trigger Smart was using, a couple different people have used it in videos because I did that 500% blowup. I took the original vertical video. I should have brought this one. Oh, no. I can't show this one because the video gets dinged. I put it on YouTube with a uh an age restriction. Oh, and I meant to say I'm going to do that with the Tyler video as well. So, when you're done watching this video, >> the Tyler breakthrough evidence video >> will be posted on Crowdsource the Truth 11 with an age restriction. So, you got to be logged in. And >> the reason I'm doing that is that otherwise YouTube will ding the video and Twitter or X will ding the video, but people say, "Send me the video. Send me the video." It's time inensive and resource inensive for me to host and post and send around videos to every unknown person who uh wants to, you know, hassle me about their theories of why I should give them $3,350. And by the way, if someone has a valid theory, they will receive the bounty. But the point is it's doing what it is intended to do in that it is incentivizing people to enter into a serious effort to obtain real evidence that's helping us learn more about it. And this is what annoys me about uh Blake and Ryan Mada and all those guys. You know, they have some sort of competition going on right now. Don't forget you can use now payments or your credit card to send crypto or regular money any amount that you choose. Thanks to everybody who is supporting that. But those guys, many people feel they've been messaging me. Many people feel seemingly in response to what I'm doing, those bozos have started some financial thing of their own where you can, you know, they're calling it win and all that. Remember what I'm doing is not a sweep stakes. It's not gambling. It's not a prize that someone's going to win. It is a bounty that can be claimed. Just like if I were offering a freelance journalist a job, get me a story on XYZ. Get me evidence pertaining to X Y and Z and I will pay. And people who agree with this approach are free to add to the bounty. at crowdsource the truth.org. It's incentivizing some of the best evidence we've seen in this investigation so far. But those guys are offering $61,000. I don't even understand the challenge. It's like who can paint the cyine chapel on the head of a pin or something like that. I'm not sure you can even do it. It seems to be calculated to just distract attention away from what I'm doing. So, I don't understand how those guys claim to be searching for the truth when most of what they're doing appears to be just calculated to raz me. Everybody's decorating for Halloween, I guess. Look at this off-road road warrior type van. The guy's probably got a secret mad scientist lab inside there. I don't know that. So, anyway, that's the deal. several evidence breakthroughs today and we're going to have an Xpace to discuss it tonight. I've shared some of these videos with Tyler and uh I don't know how to do that video sharing Xpace. Maybe you need to do it from the phone. I tried to do it in a novel way and Twitter X didn't go for it. There is some interface there, but it's not the same as a live stream. I don't know why they don't just allow you to have a live stream going on that and have an X space going at the same time. That would be the best application of that in my opinion. But again, it's software. It has limitations and capabilities and that's the way it works. I didn't design it and I don't know how to design it, but we can observe it and use it and learn how to make it do its best. >> So there you go. Evidence breakthroughs in the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation. The bounty remains open. If people can find evidence that will refute my hypothesis, you can claim the bounty. Just finding the evidence doesn't get you the bounty. It's helpful. And thank you. I'll absolutely promote your work, do an X space with you, have you on the show, and praise you as I am Tyler. He did a good job of getting this evidence. I hope we'll find out who the original photographer was and continue to learn the mystery as to why so many people were being deceptive about it. Or at least Samir MSI was. Maybe it's as simple as he's a stupid guy who was trying to get money. But that wouldn't explain why he declined to send me a screen capture when I offered him the money that he wanted >> and then when I increased the offer by $100. If he just wanted money, why didn't he send me There's the screen capture right there. I don't understand what the problem was. Strange. Anyway, thanks for watching everybody. Don't forget to support the show. You can sponsor Crowdsource the Truth by subscribing on crowdsource the truth. You're going to get access to sponsor exclusive content. You're going to get the same sponsor exclusive content if you subscribe and sponsor the show on subscribestar.com or patreon.com/crowdsource the truth. And people can also follow me on xjg_cst. Subscribe there for $5 a month. Don't forget, if you want to stake a claim on the evidence bounty, you've got to be subscribed. Your evidence is going to have to be verified. Your true identity will become known, at least by me. And that's how this all works. It's It's not about me interacting with trolls. And I commend once again Tyler Young for doing all of those things. He read the terms. He understood them clearly. He had a a dispute about the definition of verifiable versus verified, but we discussed it and got through it. So, if you are considering making a submission, if there's anything unclear on crowdsource thetruth.org, please contact me via DM or email and let's make sure we have a clear understanding of whatever it is you don't understand. There are a few people who have contacted me and said, "What does this mean?" And I've said, "You've raised a good point, and I've modified the terms to make more sense and clear up any misunderstanding." I'm not trying to deceive anyone. I'm not trying to pull a fast one. People see what this is all about. I'm trying to financially incentivize, the best evidence, the best theories, the best research, and the best journalism to come to the four. This is what newspapers do and news outlets do. They pay journalists and researchers and investigators to find evidence and then report the news. That's what it is. I don't know what Blake and Ryan and all those idiots are doing, but that's fine. they can do that. Have a wonderful, beautiful day, everybody. I'll see you tonight on the Xpace with Tyler Young. And thanks to everybody who's contributing to the evidence bounty and evidence and links to evidence and all of that stuff. Have a great day.
