Up Next
Candace Owens Reveals Federal Agents Blocked Surgeon Access to Charlie Kirk's Body at Hospital
1:03:09
Dr. Chris Martinson Exposes Major Problems with the Official Charlie Kirk Murder Investigation and Tyler Robinson Narrative
54:10
Was There a Conspiracy? Investigating the Suspicious Circumstances Around Charlie Kirk's Assassination
23:57
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Gary from Paramount Debunks Explosive Mic, Earpiece, and Alternative Shooter Theories in Charlie Kirk Case
Gary from Paramount, a former Green Beret with extensive explosives training, systematically examines three theories circulating about the Charlie Kirk incident. Drawing on his military experience and technical knowledge, he addresses claims about an explosive microphone device, an alleged earpiece, and Dr. Chris Martinson's alternative shooter location theory. Gary explains why the explosive device theory contradicts basic physics and his field experience, why photographic evidence disproves the earpiece claim, and why body positioning variables make definitive angle calculations unreliable. While maintaining respect for other researchers like Dr. Martenson from Peak Prosperity, Gary argues that current evidence doesn't support these alternative explanations and emphasizes the importance of rigorous analysis when examining what happened.
Examining the Explosive Microphone Theory
Gary begins by addressing one of the most prevalent theories: that Charlie Kirk had an explosive device embedded in his shirt microphone. This theory gained traction following incidents where Israeli intelligence used explosive pagers to target individuals overseas. However, Gary, drawing on his experience as a former Green Beret who worked extensively with explosives for breaching and various military operations, explains why this theory is completely implausible.
The first issue Gary identifies is the appearance of what some interpret as smoke in photographs. He clarifies that high explosives produce virtually no smoke during detonation. Any smoke visible after an explosion typically comes from adjacent materials combusting, not from the explosive itself. What appears in the Charlie Kirk photographs is inconsistent with explosive residue.
The second and more significant problem involves basic physics. While directional explosive charges can be created, they still must contend with Newton's third law: equal and opposite reaction. Gary explains that if an explosive device were powerful enough to cause fatal injury, it would completely shred the shirt if positioned underneath it. The explosive event would be obvious and would look vastly different from a kinetic event caused by a projectile.
Gary points viewers to examine the evidence more carefully. In the photographs, people claim the explosive device is positioned on Charlie's right side where the microphone attachment is visible. However, the energy dispersion and damage appear on the opposite side. If an explosive device had detonated, the first and most dramatic energetic event would occur on the right side where the supposed device was located. This is not what the photographic evidence shows.
Furthermore, Gary emphasizes the difference between what occurred and the Israeli pager incidents. He notes that in those explosive events, there is clear omni-directional energy displacement, collateral damage to surrounding objects and people, and visible destruction even when charges are designed to be directional. The idea that an explosive device could generate enough energy to cause fatal injury while leaving a shirt relatively undamaged defies the fundamental principles of how explosives work.
The Earpiece Theory Debunked
The second theory Gary addresses concerns whether Charlie Kirk was wearing an earpiece. While this might seem inconsequential, it has become the foundation for other theories, making it important to examine the evidence carefully.
Gary brings his experience teaching surveillance and conducting semi-covert operations to this analysis. He explains that while the actual earpiece component that sits in the ear can be quite discrete and nearly invisible, the cord leading up to the ear is always extremely visible. This has been a longstanding issue with these communication devices, even when used by Secret Service personnel.
Examining photographs that some claim show an earpiece, Gary acknowledges that in one particular image, there is something visible near Charlie's ear that could potentially be mistaken for such a device. However, careful analysis reveals several problems with this interpretation.
First, when comparing images of Charlie with clear photographs of his security guard wearing an earpiece, the telltale cord is always obvious and visible. In multiple photographs and videos of Charlie from the event, there is no evidence of such a cord. What is visible is his necklace.
Second, the dimensions don't match. Surveillance earpieces have a specific ergonomic curve designed to fit over the ear and tuck away as tightly as possible. From this curvature to the end of the device typically measures only an inch and a half to two inches at most. In the photographs showing what some believe is an earpiece, the visible length extends six to seven inches beyond the supposed curvature, which is inconsistent with standard earpiece design.
Third, when examining the footage in slow motion, the curvature that appears in still images disappears. This curvature is an artifact of catching the necklace in motion rather than evidence of an earpiece's ergonomic design.
Gary concludes that theories based on communication wires being pulled or tugged can be set aside. Not only is there no evidence supporting the earpiece theory, there is overwhelming photographic and video evidence that Charlie was not wearing one.
Dr. Chris Martinson's Alternative Shooter Theory
The third and newest theory comes from Dr. Chris Martinson of Peak Prosperity, who has proposed an alternative shooter location based on angle analysis. Gary begins by expressing genuine respect for Dr. Martenson, calling him smart, brilliant, and a master communicator, and noting that he has appeared on Martenson's show before.
Dr. Martenson's theory is built on the premise that the angles from Tyler Robinson's alleged position don't align with what happened to Charlie Kirk. Specifically, Martenson presents a graphic showing approximately a 10-degree horizontal angle. His argument is that if the entry wound occurred where reported and the shot came from Robinson's position at this angle, it would have completely missed Charlie's spinal column, contradicting the established narrative. Based on this discrepancy, Martenson proposes another shooter location.
Gary's primary issue with this theory is that it rests on a critical assumption: that Charlie Kirk was perfectly stationary and facing directly forward at the moment of the shot. This assumption doesn't account for numerous variables that could significantly affect the angle relative to Charlie's body.
Gary provides a practical demonstration. If he faces the camera perfectly squared up and a line is drawn from 10 degrees to his left, it would enter at a point that would miss the spinal column entirely. He doesn't necessarily disagree with this basic geometry. However, this calculation doesn't account for body position variability.
Even slight movements or positioning changes alter the angles dramatically. If Charlie turned his head or shoulders even slightly left or right, if he was leaning forward or back, if his chair was positioned at a slight angle—any of these factors would change the relationship between the projectile's path and his body's anatomy. Gary demonstrates how turning his shoulders one direction or another, movements that might not be obvious in photographs, can shift the angle relative to his spine considerably.
When dealing with such small angular differences, Gary argues, all these variables must be controlled and known before reaching definitive conclusions. Without being able to establish Charlie's exact body position, chair orientation, and posture at the precise moment of the shot, calculating whether the angle would or would not have struck the spinal column becomes highly speculative.
Gary also takes issue with some of the supporting evidence in Martenson's video. One photograph shows a person pointing while others are ducking or on the ground. Martenson's theory assumes this person is pointing at where the shot originated. Gary argues this is a significant leap—there is no way to know what this person is pointing at without asking them directly.
Conversely, Gary points to video evidence he has previously shared showing people on the second floor near where an interview was taking place. When the shot is fired, these individuals look in the direction of the alleged shooter location, not in the direction where Martenson proposes an alternative shooter would have been positioned. This behavioral evidence, Gary suggests, supports the original location theory rather than the alternative.
Conclusions and Call for Rigorous Analysis
Gary emphasizes that he is not dismissing Dr. Martenson or his analytical efforts. He would welcome the opportunity to discuss these points with him directly. However, he maintains that the evidence currently presented is insufficient to support the conclusion of an alternative shooter location.
The core issue is that for Martenson's theory to be correct, Charlie must have been sitting in a very specific orientation that cannot be definitively established from available evidence. Gary acknowledges that Martenson could ultimately be proven right, but argues that the current evidence doesn't justify the conclusion being drawn.
Throughout his analysis of all three theories, Gary demonstrates the importance of applying rigorous standards when evaluating evidence. His military background provides technical expertise that many analysts lack, particularly regarding explosives and their effects. His surveillance experience offers insights into communication equipment and how it appears in photographs. And his methodical approach to the angle question illustrates how critical it is to account for all variables before reaching conclusions.
Gary's analysis serves as a reminder that in complex incidents, initial theories may seem compelling but require thorough vetting against physical evidence, technical knowledge, and logical consistency. While he maintains respect for other researchers and acknowledges the value of examining alternative explanations, he argues that conclusions must be supported by solid evidence rather than assumptions.
He invites viewers to consider whether his arguments are logical and sound, and whether the evidence presented against these theories is sufficient. This open approach to analysis, combined with willingness to engage with other researchers, reflects a commitment to finding truth rather than defending predetermined conclusions.
Video Transcript
[00:00] Hey folks, Gary here with Paramount. I
[00:01] hope everybody out there is having a
[00:02] wonderful Monday. Today is September
[00:04] 29th. Uh in this video I'm going to kind
[00:08] of talk about three separate theories.
[00:10] Two of which been kind of going around
[00:12] for a while now. I've addressed them and
[00:15] some of the lives, but I want to make
[00:16] sure that we get this out on video and
[00:19] hopefully clear up some misconceptions
[00:21] about these and and why these two
[00:23] particular theories have zero to no
[00:25] evidence backing them. The other theory
[00:27] that I'm going to address is brand new.
[00:28] It was presented by Dr. Chris Martinson
[00:30] from Peak Prosperity. We'll talk about
[00:32] that. But before we get into all that, I
[00:34] want to invite you to come join us
[00:35] tonight live at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time.
[00:38] We're going to be doing a live podcast
[00:40] with Marcus J. Allen again as well as
[00:42] Dr. Chris Shifflet. Besides being a
[00:44] doctor, Chris Shifflet is also a former
[00:46] Navy Seal and I think he's going to
[00:47] bring a very unique perspective to this
[00:49] entire discussion and I've really
[00:51] enjoyed having Marcus on with all our
[00:53] live shows. I think he contributes a
[00:54] lot. So, we're going to continue to have
[00:56] him on. Uh, and I think it's really good
[00:58] to have him on when we have a new guest
[00:59] so he can uh, you know, address some of
[01:01] the things he's going to bring up from a
[01:03] different point of view, ask some
[01:04] different questions. And of course, the
[01:06] entire reason that we do these live
[01:08] shows, folks, is so that you can jump in
[01:10] on the conversation. I think this has
[01:12] been extremely beneficial to a lot of
[01:14] people uh, and to us. You know, hearing
[01:16] your questions, hearing your comments
[01:17] has definitely changed my perspective on
[01:19] many different issues throughout us
[01:22] trying to discover the truth with what
[01:24] really happened with Charlie Kirk. So,
[01:25] make sure you come join us. We want to
[01:27] hear from you. We're going to read your
[01:28] comments. We're going to take your
[01:29] questions. All right. So, the very first
[01:31] theory that I want to address, this is
[01:32] going around. It's become very prevalent
[01:34] and it is completely implausible for a
[01:37] couple different reasons and we're going
[01:39] to talk about that. So, what people are
[01:41] saying is that essentially that Charlie
[01:43] Kirk had an explosive device in his
[01:46] shirt. The mic microphone that he was
[01:48] using. I don't think we even know what
[01:50] microphone. I will say that the magnet
[01:53] attachment, which is exactly like this
[01:55] one, is from a road mic. It looks the
[01:58] same exact dimensions, everything else.
[02:00] That doesn't necessarily mean that it
[02:01] was road mic. It could be something
[02:02] else. You know, ultimately that's
[02:04] irrelevant. What really matters here is
[02:05] that anyone that's pushing this theory
[02:09] clearly doesn't have any experience with
[02:11] explosives. As a former Green Beret
[02:13] folks, I spent a lot of time with
[02:15] explosives. I know what explosives looks
[02:16] like for breaching, for many different
[02:19] aspects. and the use of explosives.
[02:22] There's a couple of issues when we look
[02:24] at this picture. And what a lot of
[02:25] people are saying is number one, if you
[02:27] look right here, you can see what looks
[02:29] like smoke. When we're talking about
[02:30] high explosives, smoke is non-existent.
[02:33] You might see some smoke after an
[02:34] explosion due to adjacent materials
[02:37] combusting, right? Not from the actual
[02:40] high explosives themselves. The other
[02:42] thing when it comes to explosives is
[02:44] that we can make charges and we can make
[02:46] devices that are directional. There's no
[02:49] doubt about that. But when you have a
[02:50] directional explosive, you still have to
[02:53] contend with the basic physics of equal
[02:56] and opposite reaction. So if the
[02:57] explosive device is powerful enough to
[03:00] kill a man, it would also completely
[03:02] shred his shirt if that is underneath
[03:04] his shirt. If that's what we're saying,
[03:05] and that is what they're saying. So we
[03:08] would have this explosive event. It
[03:10] would be very obvious as to what
[03:12] happened. And it looks very different
[03:14] than a kinetic event when we're talking
[03:16] about a a gunshot. And what we see here
[03:19] is a gunshot wound. And I think that is
[03:20] very clear. And I want you to notice
[03:22] here where they're saying the explosive
[03:23] device is, it's on the opposite side is
[03:27] where we actually see this energy
[03:29] dispersion and things happening. The
[03:32] first thing that we would see is an
[03:34] energetic event on his right side where
[03:38] they're saying that this microphone is.
[03:39] And that's not what we see at all. Now,
[03:41] a lot of where this theory originated
[03:42] was from the fact that MSAD and Israel
[03:45] use explosive pagers to target
[03:47] terrorists overseas. Now, below in the
[03:50] description, I'm going to link to a
[03:51] video that shows some of those events.
[03:54] And what we see is vastly different from
[03:56] what we're seeing in the Charlie Kirk
[03:58] incident. And I'm saying incident
[04:00] because of YouTube censoring, right?
[04:02] Just understand that. I would call it
[04:04] something very different. But YouTube is
[04:06] getting stricter and stricter on the
[04:08] censorship of these videos and it's
[04:10] quite ridiculous to say the least. But
[04:12] if you decide to not watch that video
[04:13] and those incidents, what I can tell you
[04:15] is it's very clear to me that those are
[04:18] explosive events. You see a lot of
[04:20] energy being displaced, there's other
[04:22] things surrounding people and things
[04:24] getting damaged because even if you can
[04:26] direct most of the energy in an
[04:29] explosion in one direction, you're still
[04:32] going to have that omniirectional event.
[04:34] and other things. Collateral damage is
[04:36] going to happen. And the idea that we
[04:38] would have an explosive event underneath
[04:40] his shirt and not have a severely
[04:42] damaged shirt. You know, we're talking
[04:43] about an event that is supposedly enough
[04:45] to kill a person, but not enough to
[04:47] damage his shirt. That is completely
[04:49] preposterous to me. And look, I
[04:51] understand that most people don't have a
[04:52] lot of experience with explosives. you
[04:54] know what they know about explosives
[04:55] they see on TV and they can either come
[04:58] to a bad conclusion based on that and
[05:00] put out videos based on that or they can
[05:01] see something presented that's just not
[05:04] factually based. So hopefully that
[05:05] addresses the exploding mic theory. The
[05:07] next thing I want to address is whether
[05:08] or not Charlie Kirk was wearing an
[05:10] earpiece. Uh, and while that is seemed
[05:14] inconsequential to me one way or the
[05:16] other from the beginning, I thought what
[05:18] we see flying through the air is his
[05:19] necklace, but the idea that he's wearing
[05:22] an earpiece has now become kind of the
[05:24] foundation of some other, I don't know,
[05:27] adjacent theories based on that. And so,
[05:30] let's just go through that and put that
[05:32] to bed right away. So, the idea that he
[05:34] was wearing an earpiece, a lot of it is
[05:36] based on this video right here. And you
[05:38] can see this does kind of look like it
[05:40] could potentially be an earpiece.
[05:41] There's some problems even with this
[05:43] picture. But let's keep going a little
[05:45] bit because if we do look at someone
[05:47] wearing earpiece like we have right
[05:50] here. This is his security guard and we
[05:52] can see one of these earpieces. Now I
[05:54] used to teach surveillance. I've done a
[05:56] lot of semicovert operations where we're
[05:58] using these types of earpieces and we've
[06:02] always kind of made fun of the use of
[06:04] these both for the secret service and
[06:06] everything else because while the
[06:08] earpiece itself is pretty easy to miss.
[06:12] It's almost invisible, right? The cord
[06:14] leading up to the ear to that earpiece
[06:16] is extremely visible and it's not very
[06:18] hard to identify someone wearing one of
[06:21] these. And while I agree that if we look
[06:23] at his ear, the piece that actually goes
[06:25] in his ear is very, very difficult to
[06:27] see, but what is always obvious when
[06:30] people are using these types of
[06:31] communication equipment is the cord
[06:33] leading up to it. It is very obvious and
[06:36] it's clear as day. Unfortunately,
[06:38] there's many different pictures and
[06:40] videos and things like that with Charlie
[06:42] where we can clearly see he does not
[06:44] have an earpiece. But what we can see in
[06:46] this picture, even right here, is that
[06:48] he is we can see his what looks like his
[06:50] necklace. There is no evidence of an
[06:52] earpiece whatsoever. But in this
[06:54] picture, we can see that he's wearing a
[06:57] necklace. And I do believe that's what
[06:59] we're seeing flying through the air,
[07:00] flying directly behind him. The other
[07:02] issue that you run into, even when you
[07:03] compare these two photos, is the fact
[07:05] that the thickness and dimensions just
[07:07] don't match. When you have these
[07:08] surveillance type earpieces, you do have
[07:10] the earpiece and it's ergonomically
[07:12] formed. There's a curve in it, which is
[07:15] again why I think there's some
[07:16] confusion. If you look at this curve
[07:18] that we see in the necklace, it does
[07:19] look like it something designed to go
[07:21] over the ear. The problem with that is
[07:24] that the length that we can clearly see
[07:27] doesn't match. Usually from that
[07:29] curvature that goes over the ear, you're
[07:31] talking about the rest of it only being
[07:33] inch and a half, 2 in at most. But
[07:35] clearly from that curvature that is
[07:38] normally built into this so it's more
[07:40] ergonomic and going to fit over the ear
[07:42] and tuck away as tightly as possible. In
[07:45] this particular photo we can see that
[07:46] there's probably six or seven more
[07:48] inches past that supposed curvature. And
[07:50] also when we see this in slow motion
[07:52] that curvature goes away. That curvature
[07:54] is artificial and just artifact in the
[07:56] fact that we caught the necklace in
[07:59] motion and it happens to look like the
[08:02] normal curvature that's going to be in
[08:03] one of these, you know, discrete
[08:04] earpieces. So any of these theories that
[08:06] are based on Charlie wearing an earpiece
[08:08] where we have comm's wires getting
[08:10] pulled and tugged in different
[08:12] directions, I think we can kind of set
[08:14] them to the side. Not only is there no
[08:16] evidence for it, there is a ton of
[08:18] evidence, clear evidence, overwhelming
[08:20] amount of evidence that he was not
[08:21] wearing an earpiece, period. The next
[08:24] theory is kind of a novel theory that's
[08:26] being presented by Dr. Chris Martinson
[08:28] based off some different angles. Uh, and
[08:29] I just want to say right now, I have a
[08:31] ton of respect for Dr. Martinson. I
[08:33] think he's smart, brilliant, a master
[08:36] communicator. I think he does a really
[08:37] good job. And if you haven't seen this
[08:38] video, which I will also link down below
[08:40] in the description, it's one of his
[08:41] newest videos on this. Please go watch
[08:43] the entire thing. But the entire premise
[08:46] of this theory is based on the angles
[08:50] for which supposedly the shot came from
[08:54] Tyler Robinson. Basically, it doesn't
[08:57] line up with what actually happened to
[09:00] Charlie Kirk. And what I mean by that is
[09:02] you can see on this graphic that he
[09:04] provides right here. Basically, he's
[09:06] saying that angle would not align with
[09:09] the narrative of he was hit in the
[09:11] spine. So if we look right here,
[09:14] essentially he's saying, hey, there was
[09:15] about a 10 degree angle horizontally. He
[09:17] does talk a little bit about the
[09:19] vertical angle, but I think what is
[09:20] relevant here is the horizontal angle.
[09:23] And he says it's 10°. And basically, if
[09:25] that entry wound was here, we would have
[09:28] a complete miss of his spinal column,
[09:32] therefore contradicting the current
[09:35] narrative. So based on that information
[09:37] right there, he comes up with another
[09:39] location for another shooter. And I
[09:41] think that conclusion is a big jump. So
[09:44] the main problem that I have with this
[09:45] theory is that it's based on an
[09:47] assumption that Charlie Kirk is
[09:48] perfectly stationary and he's definitely
[09:51] looking straight ahead.
[10:07] And we are not taking into account the
[10:09] variability of his seat position, his
[10:12] body position, the moment he moves left
[10:14] or right, his shoulders move, that angle
[10:17] changes in relation to his own body. And
[10:19] we don't know any of those things. And
[10:21] to go from that assumption to a new
[10:24] conclusion that there's an entirely
[10:26] different shooter without all of that
[10:28] other information, that is not
[10:30] conclusive at all. So, for instance, if
[10:32] I'm perfectly squared up and staring at
[10:34] you, the camera, and we draw a line from
[10:36] 10° from my left, it would enter here
[10:40] and would come out and we would miss my
[10:41] spinal column and my vertebrae
[10:43] altogether. I don't necessarily disagree
[10:45] with that. But what it doesn't account
[10:47] for is this or this or many other
[10:51] things. Again, if this chair is slightly
[10:53] offset one way or the other, if he moves
[10:57] slightly one way or the other, and based
[10:58] on the information that we have, we have
[11:00] no way to definitively say what angle
[11:04] Charlie's body position was in relation
[11:06] to the shot. That completely changes
[11:08] everything. Whether he's bending over,
[11:10] whether he's moving his shoulders this
[11:11] way, moving the shoulders this way. You
[11:14] might say, well, in relation to the
[11:15] chair, he was looking straight ahead. We
[11:17] don't know if that chair was set
[11:18] slightly this way, this way, this way,
[11:20] this way. And when we're talking about
[11:22] such a small angular difference, like
[11:25] you got to have those you got to have
[11:27] those variables checked before you can
[11:29] come up with some sort of definitive
[11:31] answer. And there's many other minor
[11:32] points in that video that I take issue
[11:34] with as being evidence for or against,
[11:37] you know, this theory of a new shooter,
[11:38] a new location in a new direction. One
[11:40] of the problems I have is with a picture
[11:42] that he shows with the guy pointing,
[11:44] everybody else is down. We have no idea
[11:47] what this person is pointing at. Um, and
[11:50] I don't think it's good evidence of one
[11:52] way or another. The assumption is that
[11:54] this guy's pointing at where the shot
[11:56] came from. That's that again is a is an
[11:59] assumption and a very big leap to a
[12:01] conclusion. You'd have to ask that guy
[12:03] what he's pointing at. What I will say
[12:05] is that there is good video and I've put
[12:07] it out where people on the second floor
[12:11] where we see that interview taking
[12:12] place. I'll throw a clip up here. When
[12:15] that shot goes off, all of those people
[12:16] look in the direction of the alleged
[12:18] location. They don't look in the
[12:20] direction of where Dr. Martinson is
[12:23] proposing this other shooter's location
[12:25] is. So, I do believe there's some real
[12:28] significant issues with his theory. And
[12:31] again, this is not throwing and shade at
[12:32] Dr. Martinson. I like him a lot. If
[12:34] you'd like to come on and talk about it,
[12:36] I'd love to have him. He'd be a great
[12:37] guest. I've been on his show before
[12:38] during Butler. Um, great guy. We just
[12:41] disagree on this and I wish him all the
[12:43] best all the same. But the real question
[12:45] here is what do you think? Because for
[12:46] his theory to be correct, we have to
[12:48] have Charlie sitting exactly in a
[12:51] direction that I don't think we can nail
[12:52] down. So you guys let me know at least
[12:54] if my arguments against the validity of
[12:57] his theory are logical, sound, and do we
[13:01] need a little bit more? He could be
[13:02] right. But what I'm saying is that the
[13:04] current evidence being presented isn't
[13:06] enough to come to that conclusion.
[13:08] That's what I'm talking about. All
[13:09] right. So, if you like content like
[13:10] this, make sure you like, subscribe, hit
[13:12] that bell notification button, and
[13:14] select all. Uh, we've already been
[13:16] getting lots of people telling us that
[13:18] when we're putting out new videos or
[13:19] we're going live, they're not being
[13:21] notified. So, hopefully selecting all
[13:23] will help, I don't know, mitigate that,
[13:25] I guess. But, we're definitely getting
[13:26] censored hard by YouTube. I think
[13:28] everybody talking about this is being
[13:30] censored regardless of what angle that
[13:32] they're coming at. But most importantly,
[13:34] make sure you join us tonight live at
[13:36] 8:00 PM Eastern time, Monday, September
[13:39] 29th. Come jump in on the discussion.
[13:41] We're going to take your comments. We're
[13:43] going to answer your questions. But
[13:45] until next time, stay armed, stay ready.
[13:47] We'll talk to you soon.
[13:51] [Music]
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.