Gary Melton from Paramount Debunks Charlie Kirk Shooting Conspiracy Theories with Ballistic Evidence and Analysis

[00:00] Hey folks, Gary here with Paramount and

[00:01] I hope everybody out there is having a

[00:02] wonderful Thursday. Today is September

[00:04] 18th. All right, so unfortunately as I'm

[00:07] looking through social media, we're

[00:08] getting to a point where we're seeing

[00:10] almost unmitigated

[00:12] uh quite bizarre conspiracy theories as

[00:15] far as I'm concerned. And look, that

[00:16] causes a real problem because and I saw

[00:18] this firsthand when people were trying

[00:20] to figure out what was going on during

[00:22] the Trump assassination attempt at

[00:23] Butler, Pennsylvania. You had all these

[00:25] people that were putting in real work.

[00:27] Look, I believe in citizen journalism

[00:28] because I do not believe the government.

[00:30] You should not believe the government

[00:31] narrative. You but we also don't want to

[00:34] believe a bunch of con artists and just

[00:37] silly narratives either. We don't want

[00:39] to be tricked by anybody. We need to

[00:40] follow the evidence. We need to pay

[00:41] attention. Look, I don't think all this

[00:42] is ill intended, but I do think there's

[00:44] people out there that are just

[00:45] overindulging their imagination. And the

[00:47] problem with all that is that it

[00:49] undermines everything else. You have

[00:51] people that are trying to confirm or

[00:52] deny our government narrative, trying to

[00:54] come to the truth. And the problem is

[00:56] when we have all this craziness going on

[00:58] over here from, you know, gun cameras to

[01:01] iPhone cameras, all this stuff, folks,

[01:03] that stuff is so easily disproven and we

[01:06] may go through each of those. But when

[01:08] people bring legitimate concerns up, it

[01:11] gets all lumped into that. It gets all

[01:13] of it gets dismissed. So the people that

[01:15] are doing this, you know, not ill

[01:16] intended and maybe and maybe because of

[01:18] some information gaps that we're going

[01:20] to cover today, just understand that

[01:22] there is irreparable harm being done to

[01:25] everything else that is going on with

[01:27] this investigation and people trying to

[01:29] figure out answers. So I want to attempt

[01:31] to dispel some nonsense as quickly as

[01:33] possible and get some information out

[01:34] there so that you can make good

[01:36] decisions on what is truth and not truth

[01:40] based on some facts. So the first thing

[01:41] that I keep hearing in my comments, my

[01:43] comment section is a really good tool to

[01:44] kind of see, get an idea of, you know,

[01:48] some of the perceptions of people out

[01:49] there. I go through and I start seeing a

[01:51] pattern of like people saying this, this

[01:53] or this. It helps me to make a video

[01:54] like, hey, this is true or this is not

[01:56] true. And it helps us to reformulate

[01:59] conclusions, right? Because if we bad

[02:00] have bad information, we're going to

[02:01] come to bad conclusions. So, the first

[02:04] incorrect conclusion that leads to other

[02:06] bad conclusions that I hear all the time

[02:08] is I don't believe that was the real

[02:10] shooter because he would not have a line

[02:12] of sight because the alleged shooter is

[02:13] way up here. Charlie's down here. He's

[02:15] underneath a tent. Well, let's take a

[02:17] look at that shooter's line of sight. I

[02:19] don't know why this picture hasn't made

[02:21] the rounds. It would dispel a lot of it

[02:24] would prevent a lot of myths to say the

[02:25] least. This is the alleged shooter's

[02:27] position and there is a clear line of

[02:29] sight. Now, understand that the person

[02:30] taking this picture is taking this from

[02:31] a standing position. If that person was

[02:33] taking a picture from down the prone,

[02:35] which would be the shooter's

[02:36] perspective, there would be several feet

[02:38] of clearance between Charlie's head and

[02:40] the top of that tent. But even a picture

[02:42] taken from a standing position, it is

[02:44] obvious that the shooter had a crystal

[02:47] clear line of sight to Charlie. The

[02:49] other bad piece of information that I'm

[02:51] seeing floating around everywhere that's

[02:54] leading people to really bad conclusions

[02:56] is the shot angle. I've seen it time and

[02:59] time again where people are talking

[03:00] about this extreme shot angle of like 20

[03:02] 30° or something like that. Now, I can

[03:04] tell you from a conversation, I posted

[03:06] this on X in a reply somewhere. You guys

[03:08] can check this out, but it was days ago.

[03:10] Somebody was basically referencing, hey,

[03:12] you know what? It doesn't make sense

[03:13] because the shot angle was so extreme

[03:15] that if it hit him in the neck, you

[03:16] know, it basically it would come out

[03:19] middle of his back or something like

[03:20] that. And I said, no, that's that's

[03:22] crazy. Just from what I was looking at

[03:24] without doing a single calculation, I

[03:26] was like, I think that shot angle is

[03:28] less than 10°. But guess what? To figure

[03:30] that exact shot angle out, you have all

[03:32] the tools you need at your disposal. And

[03:34] that is you can go to Google Earth and

[03:36] according to Google Earth, that distance

[03:37] is 138 yards from the alleged shooters

[03:40] location to Charlie Kirk's location. The

[03:43] difference in height is 72 feet. And

[03:45] what I did is I subtracted 4 foot 10 in

[03:49] to compensate for the fact that Charlie

[03:51] was not actually on the ground. I'm

[03:53] saying around 4 foot 10 would put the

[03:55] shot where we see it plus or minus some

[03:58] right now. You don't even have to be a

[03:59] sniper to figure this thing out. You can

[04:00] plug it into our future overlords and

[04:02] that is AI chat GPT gro whatever it is.

[04:05] But by my calculations what we come out

[04:07] with is a in degrees that angle is about

[04:11] 9.2°

[04:12] 9.2 22° is negligible when it comes to a

[04:16] ballistic effect of whether or not you

[04:18] will hit a target at 140 yards or not.

[04:20] Now, while we're there, let's talk about

[04:22] some of the misperceptions when it comes

[04:24] to the firearm itself and the difference

[04:26] between the point of a point of impact.

[04:28] If you zeroed a rifle at 100 yards and

[04:30] you shot a target at 140 yards, the

[04:33] difference is less than one minute of

[04:35] angle. And in this instance, it'd be

[04:36] less than 1.3

[04:39] or so inches. So, if he had his rifle

[04:41] zeroed in 100 yards, he could hit one

[04:43] and a half inches low, one and a half

[04:44] inches high, left, right, or whatever

[04:45] else. It doesn't matter. Now, the thing

[04:47] about angles, and you can research this,

[04:50] and I don't want to get too technical

[04:52] when it comes to ballistics and angle

[04:54] shooting, anything else, because we're

[04:55] at an angle, basically what you're going

[04:57] to do is you're going to use that angle

[04:58] and you subtract a little bit of

[05:01] distance from the target. So, while the

[05:03] shot was at around 140 yards, it's

[05:06] probably more like the equivalent of 125

[05:09] yards if we include the effects of that

[05:10] angle into the ballistic calculation.

[05:12] Now, let's talk about the firearm

[05:13] because I've heard about, you know,

[05:15] there's no way that that firearm would

[05:18] be able to hit it hit a target at 140

[05:19] yards. Folks, I could I could take most

[05:22] of you, give you a rifle, give you a

[05:24] fiveminute class on how to shoot and

[05:27] just standing with an AR, you would be

[05:29] able to hit a mansized target free hand

[05:32] at 140 yards. 140 yards is nothing. When

[05:35] it comes to precision and long-range

[05:37] shooting, typically what we want from a

[05:39] gun is a minimum accuracy capability or

[05:42] precision capabilities of 1 MOA, which

[05:44] means that gun will shoot a five round

[05:46] group and in less than an inch at 100

[05:48] yards. And if it can do that, we say,

[05:50] "Hey, that's that's a pretty accurate

[05:51] gun." And what we would consider not a

[05:53] very accurate gun is a rifle that would

[05:55] be shooting 2 in or 2 MOA at 100 3 MOA.

[05:59] But let's go crazy and say that rifle

[06:01] was so imprecise that it is a 4 MOA gun.

[06:05] Meaning that at 100 yards, it would

[06:07] shoot around a 4in shot group. At 140

[06:11] yards, especially after we calculate the

[06:14] angle, we're talking about a group size.

[06:17] if we shot five rounds of around 5 in.

[06:20] So if a shooter with a 4 MOA gun was

[06:23] aiming at this spot at 140 yards, a crap

[06:26] gun, it would still hit somewhere within

[06:28] this piece of paper. So hopefully with

[06:30] that information, you know, the idea

[06:32] that that rifle, there's no way that

[06:34] that rifle was precise enough to be able

[06:36] to do what it did. Hopefully we can pull

[06:38] that out of our calculus and come to

[06:41] better conclusions. Right. All right.

[06:43] The other misconception I see going all

[06:44] over the place that is causing people to

[06:46] come to bad conclusions and then

[06:48] ultimately it also causes them to look

[06:50] for alternative theories that have zero

[06:53] evidence and really there's a lot of

[06:54] evidence against is the idea that

[06:56] because of that shot angle you know if

[06:58] we were hit here it would end up you

[07:01] know in in Charlie's back or something

[07:03] like that folks the difference I I'm

[07:05] estimating number one I went with a 10

[07:07] degree so I I plused up that degree just

[07:09] to kind of room for error for sure but

[07:12] basically of the neck is going to be

[07:13] around 10 in at length or less. Right?

[07:16] So I did the calculation for you at 10°

[07:19] at in 10 in the elevation difference is

[07:23] 1.76

[07:25] 1.76 in. So this would be the entrance

[07:27] wound and then it would travel 10 in it

[07:29] would exit 1.76 in below below where it

[07:34] entered. But my point with this is that

[07:36] all of this stuff that people are

[07:37] looking for alternative solutions

[07:39] because they in their mind based on the

[07:41] misconceptions of the facts that we have

[07:43] here, they're looking for these

[07:44] alternative solutions. Now, I'm with

[07:46] you. I'm not interested in, you know,

[07:48] just believing a government narrative or

[07:50] a narrative from mainstream media or

[07:52] anything else. But what I what I do want

[07:54] to do is independently of what someone

[07:57] tells me is I'm going to look at the

[07:58] evidence and I'm going to come to a

[08:01] conclusion based on evidence and

[08:04] information that's solid. When we start

[08:05] looking at these alternative theories,

[08:07] there's so much evidence against them

[08:09] that it just doesn't make sense. Now,

[08:10] let's talk about direction of fire and

[08:12] the evidence that we can at least

[08:13] observe given the crappy video and

[08:15] things like that that we have that can

[08:17] help us determine a at least a fairly

[08:21] narrow angle or direction of of fire,

[08:24] right? Where that shot originated from.

[08:26] Now, there's really only two things that

[08:28] we can look at with the information that

[08:30] we have that's going to help us

[08:31] establish a direction of fire. One is

[08:33] sound, and then the other one is the

[08:35] direction of energy transfer that we can

[08:37] observe. All right, so let's talk about

[08:38] sound. In my last video, round the 22

[08:41] mark, I'll put that video up there, I

[08:43] show you a recording from a much better

[08:46] microphone, and I talk about sound

[08:48] dynamics and, you know, what cell phones

[08:50] do to loud things like gunshots, it

[08:53] distorts them really bad. But this guy

[08:55] in this video, at the 22-minute mark, my

[08:57] last video, go watch that. Now, the guy

[08:59] in that video is using a much better

[09:00] microphone, and the sound definitely

[09:02] sounds much more like what we would

[09:04] expect from a 30 caliber round versus

[09:06] the really compressed and uh bad audio

[09:09] that we're hearing from a lot of other

[09:11] cell phone footage, which is the

[09:12] majority of what all of us are are kind

[09:14] of working with, right? But what's more

[09:16] important than the sound, and I'm not

[09:17] going to play that video because that

[09:19] video was demonetized, and no, I don't

[09:21] care about the money, but any video that

[09:23] is demonetized by YouTube, all right,

[09:26] they just crush it. They pigeon hole

[09:27] that thing. And I want to get this

[09:29] information out. I don't care about the

[09:30] revenue that comes from the stupid

[09:31] video, but I do want to get the

[09:33] information out. So, I'm not playing

[09:34] that video. So, you can go watch it.

[09:36] It's already demonetized, 22-minute

[09:37] mark. But the point is is the immediate

[09:40] reaction of the majority of people in

[09:43] that video. They immediately look in the

[09:46] general direction of where the shots

[09:49] originated or at least where the alleged

[09:52] shooter was, not in any other direction.

[09:54] Now, I know many of you out there are

[09:55] saying, "Hey, that guy's a psych."

[09:58] And, you know, we think the shot from

[10:00] came from this trajectory. And again,

[10:01] just like I pointed out in that video,

[10:03] that doesn't make sense. We have someone

[10:04] that is so sophisticated that we can

[10:06] time shots from different locations,

[10:08] which is extremely hard to do. But then

[10:10] on top of that, these very sophisticated

[10:12] assassins are also going to create

[10:14] competing or contradictory trajectories

[10:17] that are it's going to be easily seen or

[10:20] found out. Now, the one thing that no

[10:21] one can fake is the direction of energy

[10:24] transfer. And I understand there's a

[10:26] bunch of videos out there from Charlie's

[10:27] different flanks that are really kind of

[10:30] give some deceptive perspectives of kind

[10:34] of what where the motion is and the line

[10:36] of the motion, right? But we do have

[10:38] this one video that's almost directly at

[10:40] Charlie's 12:00. And one thing that we

[10:43] see in this video is that we see some

[10:46] sort of we're not even sure what it is.

[10:48] People are saying it's in-ear monitors.

[10:50] Uh I tend to think it's his necklace,

[10:52] but it doesn't matter. The point is from

[10:55] this perspective, the most accurate

[10:57] perspective to get a sense of direction

[10:59] is that whatever that is is clearly

[11:02] flying straight back, almost straight

[11:04] back. And that movement and direction of

[11:07] transfer of energy aligns almost

[11:10] perfectly with the direction of the

[11:12] alleged shooter. Now, does any of that

[11:14] prove that that shot came from that

[11:15] exact location? Absolutely not.

[11:18] But what I do think it establishes is a

[11:20] very narrow angular window from where a

[11:24] shot could have been fired. All we need

[11:26] to do is follow that uh direction of

[11:29] energy transfer. And while none of that

[11:31] evidence excludes the possibility of an

[11:34] additional shooter or a a different

[11:36] shooter, it has to pretty much be in

[11:39] line with what we're looking at

[11:40] somewhere within a very narrow angular

[11:43] window of Charlie goes back. we see that

[11:47] whatever that is fly to his rear like

[11:49] that points in that direction. It

[11:51] eliminates almost any possibility of a

[11:54] shot coming from any of these crazy

[11:56] directions that people are, you know,

[11:59] proposing. It definitely eliminates, you

[12:01] know, this crazy spy camera where it

[12:02] shoots him in the back and he moves

[12:04] forward. Like he doesn't move forward,

[12:06] he goes backwards. You know, I'm telling

[12:07] you, some of this stuff is just doing

[12:08] irreparable harm and it it just

[12:10] convolutes, confuses everything and it's

[12:13] got to stop. like we got to come we got

[12:15] to sit down and take a look at some of

[12:16] this evidence and stay evidence-based

[12:18] and stay logical or like there's no way

[12:22] to find out anything. And that's exactly

[12:23] what happened to Butler. And I don't

[12:25] know if that was intentional. I don't

[12:26] know if it's just people going nuts. And

[12:28] that doesn't even take into account the

[12:29] people that are intentionally for their

[12:31] own personal gain exploiting Charlie's

[12:34] death and exploiting people's emotions

[12:35] and ignorance. And I'm going to expose

[12:37] you people for what you are because I

[12:39] find it so reprehensible. And look,

[12:41] people out there that like me, I get

[12:43] things wrong. I'm going to come out and

[12:45] admit it right away. I'm not going to

[12:46] jump from one theory to the next to the

[12:48] next to keep the keep the money train

[12:50] rolling. I'm going to show you what I

[12:51] think is taking place. If I get

[12:53] something wrong, I'm going to come to

[12:54] you and say, "Look, I got this wrong."

[12:56] Like, we got to figure out a different

[12:57] solution. What I'm not going to do is

[12:59] look for the most, I don't know,

[13:02] provocative, nonsensical theory and then

[13:04] try to find this evidence that supports

[13:06] it. And by the way, then what they do is

[13:08] they go around and they attack and try

[13:10] to destroy anybody that proves them

[13:12] wrong with logic, reason, and evidence.

[13:14] That is what they do. They are

[13:16] gaslighting at their best. They start

[13:18] calling people government agents. All

[13:20] these things like it's it's their mo. I

[13:23] find it disgusting and I don't know what

[13:26] else to say about it. All right, folks.

[13:27] I hope that was helpful. I hope that was

[13:29] informative. Uh hopefully that will help

[13:31] you

[13:33] be able to discern fact from fiction and

[13:36] truth tellers from con artists. And

[13:38] again, I know there's some people out

[13:39] there that are going to get things wrong

[13:41] and they're completely earnest in their

[13:42] efforts. Uh I understand that and

[13:45] hopefully this will help them to kind of

[13:47] recalculate how they're looking at

[13:49] things. Um and if I find some new

[13:52] information that proves me all wrong,

[13:53] I'm going to recalculate and I'm going

[13:54] to come to you and I'm going to tell you

[13:55] about it. We need to be aware. I don't

[13:56] want to be tricked by the government,

[13:57] but I sure don't want to be tricked by

[13:59] clowns out there either. All right,

[14:00] until next time, stay armed, stay ready.

[14:03] We'll talk to you soon.

[14:07] [Music]