Former Green Beret Raises Critical Questions About Charlie Kirk Shooting Investigation and Missing Evidence
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Frank Turek Was There When Charlie Kirk Was Murdered: Death Threats, Candace Owens, and the Truth About That Horrible Day
50:36
Roger Stone Raises Critical Questions About Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation and FBI Timeline
16:49
Candace Owens Reveals Shocking Missing Evidence in Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation and Crime Scene Analysis
24:45
Former Green Beret Raises Critical Questions About Charlie Kirk Shooting Investigation and Missing Evidence
Nick from Valhalla VFT, a former Green Beret with 10 years in Army Special Forces, analyzes the Charlie Kirk shooting investigation on the Alex Jones show. With extensive trauma medicine training, Nick examines video evidence and points out troubling inconsistencies: the complete absence of blood on responders' hands and clothing despite a reported carotid artery wound, lack of proper first aid response, unusual body language of security personnel, and questions about missing high-resolution camera footage. Nick also conducted ballistics testing with 30-06 rounds to evaluate claims about the shooting, while raising concerns about weapon inconsistencies and the FBI's narrative. The analysis focuses on medical response protocols, ballistics evidence, and unanswered questions that continue to fuel skepticism about the official account.
Nick from Valhalla VFT, a former Green Beret with 10 years of experience in Army Special Forces, appeared on the Alex Jones show to discuss his analysis of the Charlie Kirk shooting investigation. With extensive trauma medicine training, Nick focused on what he considers critical inconsistencies in the video evidence available to the public.
According to Nick, FBI Director Kash Patel has stated they are convinced they have identified the shooter as Tyler Robinson, but numerous aspects of the official story raise questions. The analysis centers on several key areas: the medical response, ballistics evidence, and missing footage that could clarify what actually occurred.
The Missing Blood Evidence
One of the most significant points Nick raises concerns the complete absence of blood on the hands and clothing of those who responded to Charlie Kirk immediately after he was reportedly shot in the carotid artery. Nick emphasizes his experience treating gunshot wounds and states unequivocally: "Blood is everywhere. It is everywhere. Blood would have been over everybody's hands. It would have been over all of their shirts, pants, especially an artery shot like that."
In examining the available video footage, Nick points out that as items are being handed off between responders, no blood is visible on anyone's hands. He notes that Frank Turek, identified as Charlie Kirk's mentor, mentioned that he and three other people in the SUV that transported Kirk to the hospital had to change their clothes and dressed in hospital scrubs because their clothing was so blood-soaked. However, the video evidence shows no drops of blood or trail of blood when Kirk was being moved to the vehicle.
Nick questions why no one appears to be applying direct pressure to stop the bleeding: "I'm not trying to point fingers or conspiracies, but I want to know why did nobody try to save his life? No one there is stopping the bleeding. Not one person put their fingers in Charlie Kirk's neck or their hands."
Inadequate Trauma Response
As someone who teaches trauma medicine courses, Nick describes the response he observes in the footage as fundamentally inadequate. He explains proper protocol for a carotid artery injury: "What I'm doing immediately when I roll up on somebody and they've got an arterial wound, I'm burying my hands inside of that wound before nobody's taking a shirt off. Nobody's getting gauze. Like you don't have gauze, get a shirt off. Give me some clothes. I need to pack that wound."
He notes that even individuals with minimal security training know to jam gauze or clothing into a wound, or at minimum use their thumbs to apply direct pressure to stop bleeding until help arrives. Yet in reviewing the footage, Nick states none of these basic trauma medicine procedures appear to have been performed.
Nick also points out unusual body language among the responders: "I mean, I would show more concern flipping an omelette to make sure I didn't burn it. I'm not trying to be mean here. I'm watching body language. They look like it's funny." He contrasts this with his own experience treating casualties, where even highly experienced Green Berets have shaky hands and adrenaline running through the roof because of the urgency of saving someone's life.
Questions About High-Resolution Footage
Nick emphasizes that Turning Point USA could end much of the speculation by releasing high-resolution camera footage that was being recorded during the incident. He identifies at least two high-definition cameras that were positioned to capture the events: one directly behind Charlie Kirk and another to his left from the audience's perspective.
"Where's the footage from that? I mean, you've got so many people speculating on what they think happened, but they can only speak from grainy low-definition footage," Nick states. "They could put an end to the entire thing by showing exactly what happened under that table. What were the first aid measures that these guys were taking? Where's all the blood? What truly happened?"
He notes that Candace Owens has stated she has seen clearer footage than what has been made publicly available, yet has chosen not to release it. Nick questions why this evidence is being withheld when it could provide definitive answers about what occurred.
Ballistics Testing and Physical Impossibilities
To address claims being made about the shooting, Nick conducted ballistics testing with 30-06 rounds. He wanted to debunk theories that perhaps a soft-tip round or low-grain load could explain the injury pattern described in the official narrative.
Regarding soft-tip rounds, Nick explains: "A soft tip round, guys, is actually designed. It doesn't have copper on the end. It's designed to mushroom faster to create even more damage and an even bigger exit wound faster. So the people who are saying, 'Oh, it was a soft tip,' that would have blown his neck off."
For those suggesting a low-grain load, Nick conducted testing dropping 1,000 feet per second from the typical velocity. Even at this dramatically reduced speed of 1,500 feet per second, he explains the round is still three times larger than a 9mm round. Since 9mm rounds moving at approximately 1,000 feet per second will punch through most humans, a 30-06 round at 1,500 feet per second would still "blow through his neck like butter."
The Angle Problem
Nick also addresses claims about the trajectory of the bullet. According to some explanations, the round came in at approximately a 9-degree slope and then deflected straight down at an 81-degree angle into Kirk's spine. Nick categorically rejects this explanation based on Newtonian physics and ballistics principles.
"If it hits even if it hit something very hard, it's going to hit his vertebrae, which is not hard, it's going to barely change the angle. It'll refract it down a little bit," Nick explains. He states that for the described injury pattern to occur, Kirk would have had to been shot at an extreme angle, which doesn't match the known positions of the alleged shooter and victim.
"If your argument breaks the laws of Newtonian physics, I can't get behind it," Nick states flatly.
The Missing Rifle
Another significant inconsistency Nick highlights concerns video footage purportedly showing Tyler Robinson walking onto the roof. According to Nick's analysis, Robinson does not appear to be carrying a rifle with him in any of the footage examined.
"There is no rifle in his jeans. Look at his back. There's no giant 30-06 barrel or buttstock coming up the back of his neck. As far as I can see, he has no rifle at all," Nick observes. He notes that Robinson's small backpack doesn't appear large enough to contain even a broken-down rifle.
Nick holds up a 30-06 rifle during the interview, demonstrating that the barrel alone measures 22 to 24 inches – two feet in length. Even broken down, this barrel would not fit in the backpack visible in the footage. "So, where's his rifle, Alex? Unless this is not footage of him or it's not footage of him going to the roof, but the FBI tells us it is."
Weapon Inconsistencies
Nick also points to inconsistencies regarding the rifle allegedly used in the shooting. Viral photographs show what appears to be a modern synthetic stock rifle with stainless steel components. Nick holds up his own World War II era 30-06 with its distinctive wood and blue steel construction, contrasting it sharply with the rifle shown in photographs.
"That is not what you saw in that picture," Nick states. "That's a modern synthetic buttstock with stainless steel." He notes that synthetic stocks weren't commonly available on consumer rifles until the 1980s or 1990s, making claims about a "grandpa's old 30-06" inconsistent with the photographic evidence.
When this discrepancy was raised, Nick reports that the FBI has allegedly stated they never claimed the photographed rifle was the weapon used, adding another layer of confusion to the investigation.
Public Skepticism of Official Narrative
Nick references a poll involving tens of thousands of votes showing that approximately 88% of Americans do not believe the official narrative about the shooting. He personally states he cannot identify a single person who simply accepts the FBI's account at face value.
"There are so many inconsistencies and holes in the FBI story," Nick concludes. "It's almost like the FBI tried to make the story as ridiculous as possible and create as many holes as possible just to see if anybody's going to believe it. And even if they don't, they don't care."
Call for Transparency
Throughout his analysis, Nick maintains he is not promoting conspiracy theories but rather pointing out objective inconsistencies between the official narrative and the available evidence. He emphasizes that releasing the high-resolution camera footage would resolve many of the questions being raised.
"At an absolute minimum, I see massive negligence or incompetence at a minimum. I don't think that's arguable from anybody who's been in the trauma medicine sphere to say this is not normal," Nick states.
His central questions remain: Where is the blood evidence? Why was no proper trauma medicine performed? Where is the high-resolution footage? How can the ballistics claims be reconciled with physical laws? And where is the rifle that Tyler Robinson allegedly used?
Nick concludes that without answers to these fundamental questions, the investigation remains incomplete and the official narrative unconvincing to those examining the available evidence.
