Forensic Audio Analysis Proves Charlie Kirk Assassination Shot Came From Official Narrative Location
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Turkey Tom Reveals Never-Before-Seen Information on Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs Leading Up to Charlie Kirk Assassination
47:03
Megyn Kelly and Legal Experts Examine Forensic Ballistics Evidence in High-Profile Shooting Case Involving Tyler Robinson
12:06
Travis Shares His Eyewitness Account of the Charlie Kirk Shooting at UVU: Standing 50 Feet Away
25:20
Forensic Audio Analysis Proves Charlie Kirk Assassination Shot Came From Official Narrative Location
An independent investigator conducts forensic gunshot audio analysis to determine the true origin of the fatal shot that killed Charlie Kirk. Using supersonic bullet signature analysis, multiple camera angles geolocated via Google Earth, atmospheric data, and field-tested control shots with various firearms, the analysis examines competing theories, including claims of a handgun shooter, an exploding microphone, or alternative sniper positions. By measuring waveform gaps between the supersonic crack and muzzle blast from three distinct camera positions, then triangulating those distances, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the official account: a high-powered rifle fired from approximately 150 meters away on a rooftop. The investigation dismantles alternative theories and confirms that the bullet could not have originated from any other location or weapon type based on the audio signatures captured on video.
In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, questions emerged about whether the official narrative—that the fatal shot came from approximately 140 yards away on a rooftop—was accurate. Alternative theories proliferated, suggesting the shot came from a closer handgun, from over the shoulder, or even from an exploding microphone. A CNN report that aired the day after the shooting featured audio forensics expert Rob Maher, who analyzed the audio and determined that the signature crack and pop pattern indicated a single supersonic gunshot from a firearm located about 150 meters from Kirk's position at the podium.
Dr. Maher, a professor at Montana State University and a leading expert in forensic gunshot audio analysis, published his findings almost immediately. However, this critical piece of evidence was largely buried in the noise of post-incident coverage. An independent investigator, working without a background in audio forensics but with determination and methodical rigor, decided to verify these findings using available video footage, atmospheric data, and field-tested control samples.
The Difference Between Supersonic and Subsonic Shots
The foundation of forensic gunshot audio analysis lies in understanding how different firearms create distinct audio signatures. Supersonic bullets—those traveling faster than the speed of sound—create a shock wave or sonic boom as they move through the air. This produces a sharp crack sound that is clearly distinguishable in audio recordings. When analyzing the waveform of a supersonic gunshot, you can identify two distinct sounds: first, the crack of the bullet's shock wave, and second, the muzzle blast from the firearm itself.
Subsonic bullets, on the other hand, travel slower than the speed of sound and do not produce a shock wave. These rounds create a softer, more muffled sound with no sonic boom. Common subsonic rounds include .45 ACP, .22 long rifle, and even 9mm ammunition, which is only barely supersonic. By contrast, high-powered rifle rounds typically travel at approximately twice the speed of sound, creating a much larger gap between the supersonic crack and the muzzle blast.
This gap is measurable and can be used to calculate the distance between the shooter and the recording device. The investigator recorded control samples in the desert, firing a .30-06 rifle, a .45 ACP handgun, and a carbine at various distances to capture these distinct audio signatures for comparison.
Methodology and Data Collection
The investigation employed a rigorous scientific approach. Three distinct camera angles from the day of the shooting were identified and geolocated relative to Kirk's position using Google Earth. These included a front camera positioned close to Kirk, a right rear camera about 20 feet to the right, and a distant elevated camera operated by the Utah Valley Review, the local campus news organization.
For each camera position, the investigator recorded precise measurements including distance, bearing, and elevation. Kirk's exact location and elevation were documented, as were the positions of the alleged shooter on the rooftop. Atmospheric conditions were critical to the analysis because they affect the speed of sound. Historical weather data from Weather Underground, captured by a sensor approximately four miles from the shooting location in Provo, provided temperature and relative humidity readings. Wind was not a significant factor at the time of the shooting, though it picked up later in the afternoon.
All of this data was compiled into a comprehensive ballistic spreadsheet that incorporated the Pythagorean theorem to calculate straight-line distances, adjusted the speed of sound based on atmospheric conditions, and compared observed audio gaps with expected gaps for different weapon types and distances.
Analyzing the Waveforms
Using audio editing software Audacity, the investigator examined the waveforms from each camera angle. The process involved identifying the initial supersonic crack, distinguishing it from the ground wave reflection (a secondary echo that often confuses amateur analysts), and then locating the actual muzzle blast. The time gap between the crack and the blast, measured in milliseconds, was recorded for each camera position.
When examining audio from a .45 ACP shot at 25 feet, there was no double pattern—just a single boom representing the muzzle blast and the bullet arriving nearly simultaneously, with no supersonic crack because the round is subsonic. By contrast, the audio from the day of Kirk's assassination clearly showed the two-part signature: the crack, the echo of the crack, and then the start of the muzzle blast. This pattern was consistent across all three camera positions.
The investigator also tested the theory of an exploding microphone by recording a contact shot with a .45 ACP. The resulting waveform showed one continuous blast wave with no double pattern or supersonic crack. Even a suppressed rifle shot from a distance, when the muzzle blast is too far away to be heard clearly, still produces the characteristic crack of a supersonic bullet. The evidence was unambiguous: the shot that killed Charlie Kirk was fired from a supersonic rifle, not a handgun or explosive device.
Testing Alternative Theories
The ballistic spreadsheet allowed for the modeling of multiple scenarios. The official narrative—a high-powered rifle fired from approximately 150 meters on a rooftop—was entered along with two alternative theories: a handgun fired from approximately 15 feet to Kirk's left, and a rifle shot from an elevated position in the bushes, closer and over the shoulder.
For the handgun scenario, using an assumed bullet velocity of 850 feet per second (typical for .45 ACP or .22 long rifle), the model produced no gap in the waveform, which is consistent with a subsonic round. This immediately ruled out the handgun theory because the observed audio clearly showed a supersonic signature. Even testing with a 9mm velocity of 1,125 to 1,200 feet per second produced results that did not match the observed data.
The closer-range rifle theory was more plausible but still failed the analysis. When the assumed bullet velocity of 2,625 feet per second (typical for a .30 caliber rifle like a .30-06) was applied to a closer shooting position, the expected waveform gaps did not align with the observed gaps from the cameras near Kirk. Only the distant Utah Valley University camera fell within the acceptable tolerance margin, while the two closer cameras produced a hard no—the observed gaps were too different from what would be expected for a closer shot.
Triangulation and Geolocation
The investigator plotted the estimated shot ranges from each camera position onto Google Earth, creating radius circles that represented the probable distance of the shooter from each microphone. Where these circles overlapped most tightly indicated the most likely source of the shot. The analysis revealed significant overlap in a region directly east of Kirk's position, aligning almost perfectly with the alleged shooter's rooftop location.
Alternative overlap areas were examined and ruled out. Some circles overlapped near other buildings, but line-of-sight analysis showed that intervening structures would have blocked any shot. A potential window or rooftop position was considered, but those locations fell too far inside the radius circles to match the triangulated data. The elevated position in the bushes, often cited in alternative theories, was similarly too close to fit the observed audio gaps.
The only location with significant overlap across all four calculated ranges was the rooftop where the official narrative places the shooter. The analysis concluded with 99% certainty that the shot was taken from this position.
Corroborating Evidence
Beyond the audio analysis, the investigator noted that the firearm was allegedly smuggled onto the site in parts, assembled on location, fired from the rooftop, and then exfiltrated and left in the woods as described in official reports. DNA evidence links the alleged suspect, Tyler Robinson, to the weapon and the scene. Photographic evidence places Robinson in a position consistent with the shooting timeline and location.
The forensic audio analysis, combined with this corroborating physical and forensic evidence, leaves no reasonable doubt that the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk originated from a high-powered rifle fired from the rooftop approximately 150 meters away, exactly as the official narrative states.
Transparency and Peer Review
The investigator has committed to full transparency, offering to share all data, audio samples, source video links, and Google Earth KMZ files via Google Drive. A live session was planned within 48 hours of the video's release to walk through the methodology and allow for peer review. The investigator invited viewers to check the work, play with the data, and draw their own conclusions. If interest warranted, a more polished commercial product was considered, but the priority was to disseminate accurate information and allow independent verification.
Support for the channel was offered through links on the channel landing page and QR codes, with plans to roll out a membership program that would provide exclusive access and allow supporters to help direct future investigations. The investigator clarified that this was not a full-time venture or a YouTube revenue scheme, but rather a personal pursuit to answer lingering questions and share findings with those interested in the truth.
Next Steps in the Investigation
With the audio analysis complete and the alternative theories discredited, the investigator planned to move forward with ballistics gel testing to determine whether a bullet could remain inside a body under the conditions of the shooting. This would provide further physical evidence to support or challenge aspects of the official account related to the bullet's terminal performance and wound characteristics.
