Jason Goodman Defends His Charlie Kirk Projectile Theory While Accusing Rival Commentators of Social Engineering

Welcome to a very autumn day in New York City. It's a little bit overcast and actually kind of cool. I could have and probably should have worn gloves today, but it's all right. I don't mind the cool weather. I like it actually. It keeps the maniacs at bay. It drives them underground and it's the perfect day for a an autumn stroll on the Highline. People can enjoy the Four Seasons and it's, you know, it makes you a little bit um maybe melancholy and it's a good kind of mood to discuss again once again this Charlie Kirk assassination. It's such a strange thing. It really I was thinking about it earlier. It's one of the strangest things maybe ever. And I say that not just because of all the intrigue surrounding it, but you you think about it. He's not JFK. He wasn't the president. He wasn't a senator running for president. I know people say he might have run for president in the future, but that was a long way off by any means. And you know, we've seen this US Army Hades jet, >> this concept of perhaps a conspiracy of many people. A lot of people suspect even his own security team, a lot of money around Charlie Kirk. Of course, he was friends with the president and very influential guy. But it's strange. And the amount of Look at this. The Raven Half Moon. This is new. Westside Warrior 2025. This is the first time I'm seeing this object to art here in the Highline. It is interesting to observe the art on the Highline. How do people like that? Nice or not nice? Interesting to see. Anyway, Charlie Kirk, I saw Candace Owens had a broadcast. She's back from vacation or wherever she was. It was interesting. I think Candace is raising a lot of really intriguing evidence. Certainly, she was close to Charlie Kirk. Oh, yeah. By the way, I'm back to, you know, testing live here. So, if people have some interesting comments, hey, Corky, Nick, how are you guys? Right on time. I like live sometimes, particularly when the maniacs are held at bay underground and I'm nearly overrun by a mag liner in my walk through the pseudo forest here. But anyway, I've just noticed in addition to the fact that there's just, you know, so much organization, it would seem around the assassination of Charlie Kirk, so many strange things about the prosecution of this guy Tyler Robinson. They've now decided he can appear in regular clothing, but no cameras or anything like that. Right, I'm back to live. This is what I wanted to say. So, uh, I believe I've resolved the problem that was stying broadcasts even from the apartment. It it seemed to coincide with that Amazon Web Services, whatever happened to that where half the internet went down. But if there is any problem and on any broadcast where there's ever a problem, I always put the uninterrupted broadcast up on the sponsor exclusive channels for sponsors. I can't thank the people who make Crowdsource the Truth possible quite enough. So, rest assured, you'll always be able to see the full video on crowdsource thetruuth.substack.com substack.com or subscribestar.com or patreon.com/crowdsource thetruuth or for those people who are following me on xjg cstt and subscribing there you'll get the sponsor exclusive content as well then there's going to be people who say oh you know you putting it behind a payw wall that's no good so like I mean look either you care about what I have to pay and $5 a month shouldn't be that big a deal or you don't care and don't watch it. I don't understand. That's what I mean. Social engineering. So, that's what I want to talk about today specifically with regard to Charlie Kirk, the social engineering, the meta evidence, and just all the weird people and weird activity. Maybe they're not weird people, but they're behaving in kind of like, let's go up on this side. Inconsistent. Is that it? Inconsistent ways, contradictory things that just don't make sense. And again, I sometimes get in trouble, mostly in personal relationships, when I'm like, "Oh, I wouldn't have done that. I would have done this or that." You can't anticipate really what other people would do. For instance, Erica Kirk put this video on this morning where it's the little daughter. I don't even know her name. I don't want to know her name. I like it that they don't show the kid's face, but the little girl is riding in the car and there's this really sad song. Maybe it's Coldplay and you know, you lose something that you can't replace and she's like, "Oh, I see daddy." I just breaks my heart. I mean, I don't even have a daughter, but to think that little girl, she knows daddy's not around, but I don't think she really understands that yet. And at first, I was like, "Oh man, what why is she putting this video out? I can barely watch this. Like, why is she putting it? It's heartbreaking." And then I thought maybe she edited that music in there, but maybe it was just the music playing in the car. I guess when you're sad, you're listening to sad music. I don't know. I don't want to second guess her. And see, now people will say, "Oh, Jason is a shill for Erica Kirk and defending her." I don't know anything about Erica Kirk. People send me things that she was running an adoption agency or some kind of a nonprofit with children in Romania. I haven't looked into that yet. Oh, why haven't you looked into that? You're defending Romania. You know, people will have all kinds of things to say, but I think anybody who has been watching from the beginning, some Corky lost your dad. Oh, at age nine. That is terrible. I mean, and nine, you're way older than three. That had to be terrible. I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm just saying it's so sad to see that video. And then, so I'm kind of laying off, Erica Kirk. I don't know. That's not the first place I'm going to. The first place I went to was the evidence around Adam Bartholomew's video because he's just the first video that I found. I'm trying to explain the logical progression. I was watching and then we had those idiots, you know, in Tyler, what's his name's video who wouldn't even let me get a word out before they were jumping on me. That's social engineering. That's not a reasonable person. Let me get a thought out straight here. I did that video with Tyler after we brought forward what at the time was the best evidence and is still one of the best pieces of evidence. that Dolby HDR video of the side view of Charlie being shot that up until that time I had thought was a 240 frame per second slow motion video that had first been presented as a 20 frame per second video when Zeb Boyin had it and then a 30 frames per second video that had the three images that I still say are projectiles. We'll keep talking about it. But when I did that video with Tyler, who I do believe is a social engineer behaves very inconsistently within the context of himself and a normal person and what realistically any person honestly seeking the truth would do. And Adam Bartholomew is a good contrast because he behaves consistently in my experience with him. As I started to say, I first heard Charlie Kirk had been shot. I was on a live stream with that guy game tech politics. Is that his name on Twitter on X? Sorry if I'm forgetting it. Game I enjoy that person even though I don't know their identity. He's had me on his spaces. He's treated me fairly. He seems like a reasonable guy. We were on his live stream on Twitter XSpace and boom, Charlie Kirk got shot. Somebody said that or somebody sent me a text. Nobody on the stream knew until I mentioned it. So then I immediately started saying, "Whoa, let me find some videos of that." And my first thing I went to was YouTube. And the first thing I found was Adam Bartholomew. And the first thing I noticed was he had an hour and something long video. And I went to download it and what I downloaded was 27 minutes. And I said, "Wait a minute. What the hell happened?" So I went back to his YouTube and I saw he had a 27 minute or 22 minute whatever it was and a hour and nine minute the discrepancy and I started to drill into that. That's when we figured out the whole thing about his live stream getting cut. Then I said, "Let me call this guy." Because it just immediately struck me that's weird that it would cut the second before Charlie was shot. It was so suspicious to me, particularly in light of remember it was just two or three weeks since that stupid Scooby-Doo looking shaggy kid came up to me in the park when I was yelling at uh Joel Matah, sergeant of the NYPD, and shut down my live stream. I said, "Hey, wait a minute. Did somebody shut down Adam Bartholomew's live stream? I didn't immediately say this must be Erica Kirk in Romania with Israeli technology. That wasn't my first thought. I'm not saying that didn't happen. I'm just saying I haven't gotten to any of that yet. I saw this discrepancy with the two live streams. Saw that one was live, one was in the upload section, and I presumed something must have cut this guy's live stream. I mean, he had a local recording. Let me call him and learn more about what was going on. Called Adam Bartholomew. Behaved like a normal, honest guy. He's a journalist recording. Explained to me what happened. Came on the show. How was he been two or three times on the show? I've spoken to him a few times on the phone. Text him with him every now and then. He acts like a normal person. Nothing weird from Adam Bartholomew. I have noticed that people who I don't trust have attacked Adam Bartholomew and people who I don't know random accounts he's getting social engineered attacked by social engineers. Why? I don't know but I noticed that. Anyway, that led to Cullen contacting me because remember I found the drones. I spoke to Adam and he said he had that triple redundant recording. I was fascinated by that. I realized that if I had had might not have worked with the kid in the park, but I understood how it preserved the recording for Adam and I thought it was a fascinating perhaps act accidental thwarting of an electronic exploit. That's when Cullen contacted me about the jet. >> Now, we got to talk about Cullen. A lot of people still contacting me saying, "Will you call him and ask him what's going on? He's gone dark for more than two weeks now, I think. So, the answer is no. I will not call him. I don't know where he is. I don't know why he's gone dark. We could speculate. We could discuss what I do know about it. And that is >> well after I put out the video from Adam Bartholomew where I went in there and said, "Hey, wait a minute. >> Is this a drone flying around Adam Bartholomew 30 seconds after Charlie Kirk was shot?" And my first thought was not that this drone was shooting at Charlie Kirk. My first thought was that it was doing an electronic exploit that shut down Adam Bartholomew. So that's when Cullen contacted me. And the thing that was weird about that is, see, a lot of people don't really understand what the association was between myself and this pseudonmous individual who goes by John Cullen. I won't reveal his real name. I don't intend to harm him and I wouldn't benefit from doing that. We're going to keep calling him John Cullen. Although that's a courtesy I don't normally extend to social engineers, I think operating under a false name, it definitely ticks a box of social engineering. So whether I'm pro Cullen or anti-Cullen, I can't deny that George Webb is actually George Swigert. Oki Marshall Richards is the true name of Richard Stone. Uh, the list goes on and on. Dave Actton, pseudonym. We know all of these unscrupulous people operate under fake names. And it really never made sense to me. A lot of the things again, inconsistent behavior. Cullen told everybody that he worked for uh Oracle, that he worked on ERSI or ESRI, whatever that map was. Certainly, there were people who could have recognized him. He even told me that there were people in his, you know, social life where he lived or told me that he lived. I've never been to his home. I've been to places where he used to live in Thailand, but he told me there were people who know him by his real name. And he specifically even after I learned his real name asked me not to call him by that even in private phone calls because he felt that I would slip during the show and call him by his real name. So it creates this weird schism where you think that somebody is a close friend but you're actually calling them by this fake name is kind of like friend identity crisis >> to the extent that is this person even a friend? Do I even know them at all if I'm constantly using this fake name to refer to them? It's weird. Anyway, he contacted me when I found the drones and he was super excited about it, effusive with praise. Didn't say anything about the incident that had occurred almost a year ago now that caused our first sort of breakdown in our professional and personal relation relationship. This kid should not be skateboarding on the Highline. I don't care how old he is. Where are his parents? >> I won't go into all the details of that, but suffice it to say, I held back from publicly stating that I kicked him off the show. I ended the show because he became so intolerable after the Butler uh assassination attempt and his Twitter account went to over a 100,000. He just became so uh abusive. Everybody knows he loves to do that on Twitter, be rude and tell people they're stupid and to shut up and all that kind of thing. I don't tell him how to act. I mean, if that's the the brand that he wants to cultivate, I don't think it's a great idea. But at the same time, I get it. There are a lot of stupid people on social media who sometimes deserve to be yelled at. Look, we got some new art installation coming or going. Interesting. These guys are the art movers. You get to see all kinds of stuff underway. >> But anyway, enough of that. Cullen became insulting, abusive, irritating. I told him that's it. we're ending our collaboration. And the thing that I felt was inconsistent about that behavior the first time was we'd been working together and ostensibly had been friends for like eight years or something. And I mean, again, I don't want to say what I would do, but when somebody who is a long-standing friend indicates that they're very upset with me, and it happened years ago. I was actually just talking to this person on the phone the other day. He also knows Lee. Lee is not well. >> We'll talk more about that another time. >> But anyway, this friend of mine who has nothing to do with the show years and years ago, I could tell he was upset about something and I asked him and he explained to me about something that I had done and I said, "Man, now that you're sharing your point of view with me, I see why you're angry. I shouldn't have done that. I'm sorry I did that. I'll do what I can to make it up to you and make sure that never happens again. And the guy was so blown away that I apologized and took responsibility rather than saying like, "Oh, get over it. Forget it." Like most people usually do that it really went a long way. I'm still friends with this person and it did help repair the situation. Anyway, I was a little surprised that Cullen did nothing like that. Even strictly from a business, more focused from a business standpoint, you would think, "Hey, we're doing these shows together. We earn money doing that. I've just crapped on this relationship. Why don't I at least call the guy and find out what's bothering?" He didn't do that. Not at all. So, people who are contacting me now saying, "Oh, call Cullen and find out what's going on." He's not a sentimental guy. people saw the much more public blow up that we had two or three weeks ago where he started beefing with uh what's his name? Robert Barnes saying things on Twitter that could e or an ex that could easily be construed as actual threats, things that you can sue people over, things you can get kicked off of Twitter over. And he was doing it right at a time that I was gaining quite a lot of traction on Twitter. Coincident with George's mentally ill, wife swapping, hog effing paperclip Nazi brother. Coincident with him sending emails to the lawyer for Twitter saying, "Oh look, Jason and his associate John Cullen are issuing threats on Twitter. Kick him off of Twitter." Now, maybe that was a coincidence. >> Maybe Cullen had nothing to do with that. I don't know, but he was doing it. So, it was at least irresponsible. And he was doing it in a way where, you know, he's using a fake name. He's got no legal liability for things that he does under the name John Cullen. He can't sue anybody as John Cullen or be sued as John Cullen. I guess he could be sued as a John Doe known as John Cullen and you could force certain entities to try to reveal who he is. But we see now that if he's willing to abandon that uh Twitter account, that person's looking at me like he might know the show. He could just disappear, go back to Thailand, you'd never find him. I'm not suggesting that anyone should try to do that. I'm just saying there's a certain way like Adam Bartholomew. Again, good contrast. Saw the guy on YouTube, looked up the name Adam Bartholomew in Utah, found a listing for somebody who's 42. Looked at Bartholomew on YouTube and said, "This guy looks like he's about 42." Called him up, said, "Hello, Adam." He said, "Hi." That was him. He's not hiding. He's not using >> Bart Adamstein or some weird alternative name. You want to be on the show? >> No, thank you. >> Yes. So then stop acting like a jackass. >> Anyway, >> the point is there's a way that people can behave that's honest and consistent and not being a pain in the ass. And then there's social engineering. So, back to the Charlie Kirk thing. A lot of people have been pushing a lot of theories that in my view are quite obviously stupid, right? One of the most popular, extremely stupid, and frankly disproven by all decent available evidence is this notion that Charlie Kirk's microphone exploded andor shot a projectile at him. Oh, Jason, you're defending Israel. Well, no, I'm not because they still could have done it in some other way. I'm just saying there's no evidence that the microphone exploded. Let's look at all the evidence that disproves the microphone exploded theory. I have carefully curated each of these videos so that we will not see anything brutally graphic. I don't want to get a sensitive content strike, but I have zoomed in on some of these and I would really like to find some of the originals. I still don't have the camera original on most of these, but what this shows is this is one frame after Charlie has been shot. Let me zoom in a little more. There you can see the microphone is still attached to his shirt throughout this. So, if it exploded, that explosion would have already occurred. How do we explain that it is still magnetically whether it shot a projectile or exploded? How could it still be? Serious question. How could it still be attached to the shirt? how I'm not saying it isn't possible to create an exploding microphone and certainly the exploding pagers in Lebanon that Israel has boasted about are examples of small functional electronic devices with most of a battery in there. I I would imagine somebody clever could even make it so that the battery battery chemistry itself is part of the explosion. But the point is the magnetic part would go flying off whether it's shot or exploded. That would be a lot of kinetic activity. And people say, "Oh no, it happens later." You got to understand in terms of explosions and gunshots, one video frame, 130th of a second is a gigantic amount of time. It really is. So, there's just one video that shows how stupid that is. Let's look at another. Here's another one frame after he shot. Look, you can still see the black dot. And we still don't have the original video on this. Who shot this video with the red hat? Look, that thing is still there. The shirt is doing all kinds of energetic activity. There's a necklace under there whipping around. There's a bullet I allege going through his neck. I'm going back and forth now, but look, it's attached. The thing is attached the whole time. The magnetic part of that microphone stays on the shirt. I have more >> How stupid is the microphone theory videos. Here's another video. Who should we We don't have this original video. There it is. Do I zoom in more on this one? No. You see there? He's shot. It's still attached. We're two frames after the shot now. 115th. Boom. It's still attached. It's still attached. You see that little dot there? The shirt is folded up over the fabric. And we're very crunchy on the compression there. Low resolution video. But you see the black dot of the microphone stays on his shirt the whole time. Three video frames. That's a tenth of a second. An explosion is happening in 1 5,000th of a second, 1 10,000th of a second, 1 1,000th of a second. It's very, very, very fast. The thing is not staying on his shirt if there's an explosion. And if there's a gunshot, there would also be that's a tiny little How does a gunshot from the microphone go into his neck? the whole thing makes zero sense, but they keep coming back to it in a way that, you know, me going against it, they'll say, "Oh, Jason is lying." Uh, now then the other thing I've been seeing that I don't quite get and and this has been recently championed by somebody who is a follower and I I like I have no beef with this person. I'm not saying she's a malicious social engineer. Sometimes people just get confused or influenced by other things. I just want to point out some facts. I don't know Frank Turk. I have no reason to believe that he's involved in anything sinister. He seems like a super serious Christian. What is he? A minister, a pastor, some kind of I don't know. But he was friends with Charlie. When I see him talking about Charlie Kirk, he seems to be legitimately emotional and choked up. I mean, I sometimes get that way. Think about David Hawkins, Lenny Lipton, John Merritt, friends of mine who have died. What the [ __ ] are these guys doing? Sorry, I didn't mean to curse. That upsets some people. Anyway, it seems to me that Frank Turk is sincere when he's getting upset, but I put out that video. But this also makes me feel bad when I put out an evidence video and then people take it and come to some conclusion that is not at all what I think the video can reasonably allow you to draw a conclusion of. Obviously people are free to draw their own conclusions but I don't think Frank Turk did anything wrong. And so some people are saying, "I don't even understand what this allegation is." They're saying that because he said he was on FaceTime and then we have this video where we see his phone. I made a video saying, "What is this reflecting in Frank Turk's phone?" Cuz I, you know, we see what looks to me like the police officer and I thought we could even see the gun in the holster and then the police officer looks like he's moving or something. So I was like, "What are we seeing reflecting here?" Other people thought we saw a laser like from a laser sight on a gun reflecting in Frank's phone. Maybe we did. It could have been anything reflecting in there. The sun. I don't know what. I just said, "What do we see reflecting in the phone?" Because I wasn't sure. This was from that 60 frame per second HDR video from Cub Keller. Another example of some of the best evidence we've had. Did I Did I talk about meta evidence? Do people know what meta evidence is? I'm talking about the evidence around the evidence. Like the video itself is the evidence, but what I'm talking about is how we got it, >> how people are responding to it, all of the evidence around and about the evidence. Particularly with that first video that came through Tyler that was originally attributed to Samir MSI. That's one of the strangest pieces of evidence because remember I first got it from Zeb Boyin. A lot of people feel like Zeb was very uncomfortable when I started digging into the technical details of that evidence and now he's off making videos shooting pork shoulders all with supersonic rounds. It's not like he said, "Well, you know what? Let's entertain Jason's theory and we'll do something with a PC. Maybe he doesn't have a PCP air rifle. I mean, I saw a video Zeb did today portion of it where he was talking about, you know, oh, I don't know why people aren't doing these tests. They they have the equipment. I don't know exactly who he's talking about. Maybe Gary, another very suspicious character. I would like to do some gun tests, but I don't have any guns. And you can't really like fire guns around here. Too many buildings and people. But Zeb acted very strangely when that 20 frames per second video showed up. And how did we get that 20 frames per second video? You can't easily export from a phone a 20 frame per second video. I get it how we got all these other kind of crappy low bit rate videos. Most people will shoot a video on the phone and then either download it on their computer and put it on YouTube or Twitter or X or Tik Tok or whatever they're doing or go directly from the phone to one of those platforms. somebody else gets it, maybe screen captures it on the phone or downloads it with an app and re-uploads it somewhere else that transcodes it again. But none of these mainstream social media apps are going to transcode your video to 20 frames per second with the high 10 meg profile. That is a very very specific type of processing that was associated with that Zeb Boyin 20 frame per second version of the video. And back to Candace Owens for a second because look, I I don't really have a very strong opinion about Candace Owens. I liked her more in the past than I might now. She was a little bit rude. I've mentioned many times when I met her personally, but even that is fine. I am nobody to Candace Owens and she was a famous chick when I was meeting her at that Charlie Kirk event. Why would she have any particular interest in talking to me? I'm not even being critical of her being famous person rude when I met her. I'm just saying that speaking as objectively as I can about myself, I think it would be hard to deny that I have brought forward, even if you disagree with my conclusions about the evidence. I've certainly brought forward some of the best evidence available in this case. It was my evidence bounty that got us to the original 30 frame per second 211 megabyte Dolby Vision HDR version of that video that these three dots that I say are projectiles. By the way, the evidence bounty is up to $3,500. people still have I guess it's a week from today. And by the way, the part of it that Tyler didn't seem to understand is it's not just get the evidence. It's that you have to get evidence and form an evidence-based counter thesis that disproves my thesis that he was shot from behind, which would involve, you know, disproving that those three dots are projectiles. Nobody has done that. There's a few more people we need to speak to who seem sort of dedicated to that, but not with evidence. They're doing it with social engineering. And that is also interesting. That's the meta evidence that I'm talking about. We present this evidence and then Blake Bednars acts a certain way. Tyler, whatever his name is, acts a certain way. Uh, Zeb Boyin acts a certain way. Remember, Zeb said, "These are bleed frames." What the hell is that, Zeb? You made that up. That's like if I get out on the shooting range and start making up terms that are not used in the gun world. Wow, look at that. There's a huge cruise ship over there. People see that? >> I don't know what that is, but holy crap, that's gigantic. >> Look at that. Zeb said it's a bleed frame. Well, what are you talking about a bleed frame? I'm interested in knowing how the original photographic frame got there. And I've noticed that people have been coming back to that thesis. No one has presented a scientific counter thesis. Now, a guy who I thought was a pretty smart and nice guy, Matthew on Trigger Happy, whatever his thing is. I was on there a couple of weeks ago. He keeps revisiting this anonymous calla. I forget the guy's name, but why is he putting so much emphasis on emails from an anonymous unknown who is it? What if it's Israel emailing him? Why would he put so much emphasis on these anonymous emails? But the only reason I'm talking about it is that it's repeatedly focused on me and even mentions me by name. But what Matthew did is he went back. He did a video today, maybe four or five hours ago, where he was addressing this guy's emails, but it was an email from October 16th, which is curiously one day before I obtained the original evidence that actually strengthened my hypothesis because it told us that the video was not shot at 240 frames per second. It was a Dolby Vision HDR video which as I explained in this technical paper is another 240 Hz mode of the phone. This Apple technical event or actually marketing event goes into some technical detail about how the deep fusion process that enables high dynamic range video works. In that technical paper, I cite the Dolby patent. I'm not making this stuff up. I talk about how deep fusion, radiance mapping, Dolby high dynamic range imaging, meg, HEV, what is it? HEVC, H265. How all of that contributes to what we see there, which is three dots photographed 1 240th a second apart, traveling at 500 ft per second. No one has unraveled that and explained that in another way. And Matthew, I take issue with the video that you did today because you're either a lot less trigger smart than I thought you were or you're a social engineer because now you're showing other frames with other items that I never said were projectiles and you're either confusing your audience, confused yourself, or I don't know what. But I just find it very inconsistent that sometimes that guy's really smart and sometimes, particularly when he's trying to debunk what I'm saying, he's very stupid. And sometimes he wants to communicate with me a lot, send me emails, ask me to talk about these uh Google, what was it that that lawfare guy, Baron von, whatever his name is, Google trends with searches coming from Israel. I mean, that's intriguing. Maybe that's real evidence, but I don't know. Something about it being so website ccentric feels magic tricky to me. Like is there some way you can adjust the date on your computer and get on a VPN and go and search for something after the fact and create a log that appears to fool Google. I don't know. Maybe that's all real information. It just seems a little too convenient. I don't know. And that guy Baron. See, the other thing is I see Ian Carol, he goes and he's like, "Oh, everybody follow this guy." And he's going and sending him $100 in uh uh super chat and all that. This is all social engineer activity. Remember when people said, "Oh, Jason, Ian is talking about you on his live stream. That's social engineering, too. That's what George Webb used to do. I want Jason to do really well. Meanwhile, him and his brother would be arranging a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan where they're filing forged documents. You doing one thing publicly to make people think something, but then doing something else behind the scenes. I noticed that these social engineers, they promote each other like Ian saying, "Everybody follow this guy, sending him $100. Doesn't that influence other people to send the guy money on uh super chat? Why are all these guys able to be monetized on YouTube and meanwhile I'm getting every YouTube channel destroyed? It makes no sense. It's just inconsistent." And now what we'll do is people will say, "Oh, Jason's complaining." Isn't that convenient the way that's set up to make it look that way? Maybe this is all coincidental. I don't know. It just reeks of social engineering. And by the way, I'm not saying that that evidence about Google Trends searches isn't real. I'm just saying I don't know how to verify that. What does Google say about that? What does some IT expert who's not in the Twitter, YouTube X kind of alternate viewpoint world, what do they say about that? Because I know there are ways that people can hack the ECF, the electronic court filings, or at least I've observed filings from George and his brother that cause me to believe that can be done. I think it involves changing the date on your computer, making a filing, contacting the clerks and saying, "Hey." Then they go back in their emails and they say, "Oh, yeah. Look at that. There is an email that we missed from 3 days ago or whatever." And then they file it. Something like that. Can you do something similar with Google Trends? Can you set up a VPN to say, "Hey, I'm in Washington DC." or hey, I'm in Israel or hey, I'm in China or Russia. Isn't that what Wikileaks told us the CIA was doing with the Vault 7 hacks? That they had tools to mask where they were doing these things from? I don't know. And by the way, what does that even mean that they were searching for Tyler? Like, why would you do that? I'm just trying to expand on these, you know, pieces of evidence because the people who are giving them to us are very suspicious and behave very suspiciously. Like, in other words, when Ian was on his live stream talking about me, Ian has my cell phone number and my email address and my DM. And when he wants to communicate with me, he knows he's got two million people or whatever looking at him on Twitter. If he sent me a text and said, "Bro, I'm going live in five minutes. [music] Do you want to be on my show?" Obviously, if I was available and interested in talking about what he wanted me to talk about, I would go on. So him talking about me, I allege, is a way for him to deflect people who would otherwise say, "Hey, isn't it suspicious that Ian and Candice are talking about and telling people to follow Ryan Mada and Baron, whatever that guy's name is." And you know, they're they're talking about these people and they're super chatting $100 to these people, but they're not looking at this evidence that Jason is talking about. And I'm not saying that they need to. They could and should do whatever they want. I'm just saying even if they disagree with me, I see a lot of people taking my evidence, the evidence that I brought forward, the Cub Keller video that I revealed was a 60 frame per second video, and they're looking at it and they're doing things with it. Now, the other thing that I found very interesting about what Candace did in her video that I even used in the thumbnail is this guy making the selfie. I agree with Candace. This guy is suspicious as hell and I've been talking about him since the first day. So, I don't understand why canvas, forget about me. Why doesn't she independently go to, hey, what's going on with this ISR jet? I mean, that's public FAA ADSB radar data. What the hell was that jet doing there? I mean, isn't that interesting? To me, the most suspicious people are the camera guy, the security people, that jet. Sorry, I forgot to mention what I was saying about Frank Turk. So, somebody who's a fan of the show says Frank Turk is somehow up to something no good because this screen on his phone is black and that means he was lying. I don't like it when people say, "Oh, this means somebody was lying." You need really strong evidence before you accuse somebody of lying. It's another thing I don't like is that certain people will put out very sensationalized videos saying such and such proves that this or that is happening. I don't think so because I don't know why Frank Turk's screen was black. Maybe he had the brightness turned down. Look at this guy on the right. His screen we can see and then this girl on the left you can't. Is she using a different phone with a less bright screen? Does she have the brightness turned down? Maybe her eyes are sensitive. Does she have one of those privacy screens on there? I don't know. I just don't immediately jump to the conclusion that this girl is lying about something because we can't see anything on her screen. Frank Turk, I don't know. Don't know anything about Frank Turk. I'm not trying to defend him or indict him. And that's what I'm getting at with most of this stuff. I don't really think too many conclusions can be drawn about too many things. But what is interesting is that the limited number of things that I think we are able to make conclusions about like the three dots on the screen there that I can explain every question anybody has about them. Why aren't they perfectly in align? Well, the one in the center is over gray and the two on opposite sides are over black and they are rendered and compressed in the intraframe compression differently that could make them appear to be different sizes or slightly out of registration with one another, but they are moving in a very consistent speed and a very cons. People say, "Oh, it looks like it's moving away." That's the other issue with trigger not so smart. And Matthew, he's back to these are moving away. And he hasn't bothered to try to understand the very detailed technical explanation that I've provided. He's done three or four videos about this anonymous emailer. He hasn't gone and brought up my technical paper and said, "Well, can we understand Jason Goodman's theory about this projectile moving towards Charlie? Why don't we read his technical paper and why don't all you people in my comments send me comments about does this make sense or not? Here's an obnoxious person smoking in the park >> or >> illegal in New York City. The point is why is he so focused on this anonymous emailer and the anonymous emailer himself is behaving inconsistently because at once something about him needs to be so secretive that he can't tell you who he is and he wants to be anonymous but yet he's sending these emails. You know this is so important to him that he sent the email to me. He sent the email to Matthew at Triggerhappy. He sent the email to Range Day Bro. All kinds of people because he wants to get this message out. And the email is so focused on me and what I've said about that projectile. And he's convinced this Kukaka, whatever the guy's name is, he's convinced that the necklace somehow whipped around and shot into the neck. I mean, that is just absurd to me. Let's look at this necklace video for a second. Let's look at a couple things because this, again, I'm not just latching on to one piece of evidence and saying, "Oh, three dots coming from behind. It was Chris Martinson who said this decorticate posture indicated a neurological injury." Oh, there's the microphone we see again, still attached after Charlie is shot. That's what I'm showing there. But let's go to this closeup from the same shot from Cub Keller. This is 60 frames per second now. So the first moment we see a disturbance at the back of Charlie's shirt. This is very likely enough time for the thing to have penetrated his neck. Next frame that we see, it's already through his neck. And look at the back of Charlie's scalp there. First of all, we see all this high energy motion through the front of the chain. It's moving a lot more than the back of the chain. and the back of his hair is rippling almost as if something has hit the back of his head and a shock wave is going in 130th of a second. And now we've got more high energy motion towards the front of the chain almost like it broke at the front and it's whipping around. If it was hit, if the chain was hit in the back, what I'm alleging is the bullet went through his neck and hit the chain in the front on the way out, snapped it in the front, and now it's whipping back. That's what it looks like to me is this super fast high energy event and after just two frames of video the back of Charlie's head kind of relaxes back to normal. That chain is whipping backward. I don't understand the explanation of how the pendant generates enough energy to go into the front of his neck. And Matthew did a whole video today talking about phys. I I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Makes no sense. And then he does this real light kind of wave off of my technical explanation of how the video stuff works and and why those three dots were photographed and are presented to us in the way they are seems inconsistent to me with someone who's really interested in finding the truth and exploring the facts. Trying to be smart seems more like trigger social engineering. I also noticed that he frequently mentions impractical tactical or whatever the hell Gary's thing is called. Stupid tactical, knucklehead, meatthead, Nazi tactical with Gary the [ __ ] I initially figured, well, this guy's got a gun channel and Gary has lots of viewers, so he probably wants to get on there. But he's also mentioned VFT Valhalla, I think is the guy's name. I don't know that guy. But again, it's just interesting to see these like groups of people who know each other or promote each other and don't want to say anything about me or forget about me, the evidence that I'm talking about. Like, why are they ignoring this whole body of evidence even if they don't like me? You know, Candice, I heard her say, "Oh, people are doing great work like Ian Carol, Ryan Mada, Zeb Boyin." >> So, >> I really find it hard to believe that somebody would know about what those guys are doing on this case and not have seen what I'm doing. And Candace, here's a message directly for you and everyone. Ryan Mada is absolutely a terrible person. His research is so stupid and bad and he is such an ignorant, hateful bigot. The fact that he would say, "Oh, Jason can't speak in this space because he's a Jew." Candace, how would you feel if anyone said, "Well, I don't know. I'm not going to listen to what Candace says because she's black or she's a woman or something like that." Or what if a black person said, "I'm not going to listen to Candace cuz she's married to a white guy." The fact that Ryan is such a bigoted, ignorant, simple-minded [ __ ] [ __ ] to me disqualifies him from any kind of reasonable consideration as anything other than those things I just described. He is such a hateful miscreant that it actually causes me to wonder. This is a good this is a good bookend to what I'm talking about because I started on this walk questioning why it doesn't really make sense. You know, all this activity around Charlie Kirk and an army jet to assassinate the guy. What was that doing there? Why are certain people not talking about that? You know, even Ian was was initially fascinated with the army jet and the drones. And we know he knows Candice. Why isn't she talking about that? I don't know. It's just strange to me. It seems like something that anybody who's interested in getting to the bottom of this would want to talk about. But when I think of that ignorant idiot Ryan Ma who has promoted Blake Bednars so much, who is perhaps the most inconsistent guy who says, "Oh, I don't want to get involved in independent journalism. I have an insurance company to run. But yet, anything that I brought up, Blake has done these really sort of uh overt things to counteract. First the drones, then we had Chris Martinson publicly tell me that I need to contact Blake to give him the money from the evidence bounty. That Blake is the one who had the evidence. Then I called him and not only did he refuse to give me the evidence, he lied publicly, defamed me, said I was harassing him. I had been instructed to call him. I called his office, a publicly posted phone number, and his receptionist gave me his cell phone number, and told me to call him on his cell phone. Then he said I was harassing him. That's defamation. That's a setup. This is all social engineering activity. And by the way, back to my friend Mr. Cullen, he's another one who instead of, you know, when I disagreed with his obviously stupid, completely unsupported by evidence theory that Charlie Kirk was shot by a drone. I told him that in private, explained to him how it doesn't make sense, how he would need to have a gimbal. He didn't call me up and say, "Jason, what are you talking about? this projectile looks like it's moving away. Help me understand this. He didn't do that. He made it appear to the public that he was supporting me by taking all of my images of drones, retweeting them. You know, sure, my logo was on there, but he was getting, you know, thousands of views and clicks and all the things that people are trying to get by putting stuff on social media by spreading around my information there. Strangely, he wasn't doing shows with me. He did two shows with me. Then he did a show to counteract what I was saying to say, "No, Charlie was shot from the front. This projectile is moving away." I saw lots of comments he was putting on my tweets saying the projectile was moving away. That's damaging to use a much larger account to try to it's damaging to the reach of the information let's say by using a larger account to say no this is false many more people are going to see that now like I said he doesn't have to agree with me if he doesn't want to but the way he's going about spreading this information is just inconsistent on the one hand to say oh Jason's the smartest video anal there is and then say, "No, this is wrong." How do we reconcile that? Why wouldn't someone in his position say, "Well, now wait a minute. You just figured out this other thing. I'm going up, down, sideways, and all over the place telling everybody how smart you are analyzing videos, but now I disagree with you." And he doesn't even explain the disagreement. It's not like he went off and found the guy who wrote Dolby Vision HDR and got some definitive answer as to why I was wrong, just decided, oh, it looks like it's going the other way and ignored the explanation. So, >> I don't know. I mean, for Candace to promote somebody like Ryan Mada, for her and all of them to ignore this evidence, it just says to me that they are either willfully ignorant or in the worst case, and this is what I wanted to bring it to. See, when I think about this Charlie Kirk assassination, I'm reminded of the Arch Duke Ferdinand. If people have been watching for a while, they might remember when Charles and I went to Sievo or where did we go? Somewhere around there. And we actually saw that very spot where the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. It was an interesting experience because you know all your life you hear, "Ah, this is what started World War I, right? Archduke Ferdinand, who remembers that?" >> And it seems like such a big gigantic like deal, >> but it was just this like tiny corner of a street he's driving by and he got shot in a car. >> I don't think I even really understand the details of how that allegedly started World War I. But what if the Charlie Kirk assassination was calculated to do something similar? You know all these people with please give one idea that explains the shock wave on his face and neck explosively broken chain and the ballooning t-shirt. >> I've given the idea. I'm saying I'm saying he's hit in the back of the head by maybe as large as a 50 caliber PCP round going 500 ft per second. and the impact on the back of his head. You know, your skin and your body has a lot of blood and liquid in it. So, just like if you throw a rock in a pond and it creates ripples and waves on the surface, that's what I believe is happening to the back of his head. Then the bullet leaves the front of his neck. That's the exit wound that we see before all the blood goes gushing out. And he's leaning slightly forward. So the chain is hanging off of his neck just enough that the bullet seems to hit the chain on the way out. And think about it, if you had a chain or a string or a rubber band around the front of your neck and something was pulling it from the front and then it snapped, all that energy transferred to the chain from the pulling it, boom, would snap it backward. And that seems to be what we're seeing. And the shirt is rustling around because this incredible energetic event is happening in there from a bullet cutting through his neck and catching the chain and flipping the shirt up. And it's all happening at at such a superhuman speed that it's just the type of thing that we're not used to observing and you with very very little experience actually zero experience ever seeing anything like that. And so when we look at a bunch of videos that are essentially capturing little tiny slices of it and in ways that people don't understand like Chris Martinson who is an obvious idiot who says, "Oh, this is a supersonic cavitation event." So if the chain is 2 ft long, is he suggesting that Charlie's neck inflates so much that that chain I mean how much would his neck have to inflate? It would have to become the size of a concert beach ball. And how come we don't see that? We don't see it inflate. We don't see it relax. We don't see any of that. We see rippling at the back of his head. And there's a total of three frames of that. There's one frame in the Ryan Sim Simmons video, right? Is that his name? Ryan Simmons. I think that's his name. And then there's a two slightly different looking frames in the 60 frame per second video from Cub Keller. And that makes sense because when 130th of a second has expired, that event at the back of Charlie's head is over because it's happening so quickly that you can barely see it. And the reason that we see it at all is that both of those cameras are iPhone cameras and they're able to freeze the action in one frame to a very high degree because it's a bright and sunny day and the exposure time is probably 110,000 115,000th of a second something like that. So we see very clearly that motion unlike the video that Chris Martinson uses to determine that there's a cavitation event which is shot on an ENG news camera using a 160th of a second exposure time. There we're seeing all of this ruffling and all of this shirt activity blurred into what he mistakenly interprets as an explosion. So again, he's either stupid or willfully misinterpreting that or both. And I mean, I've explained this many times. I realize not everybody watching has seen every video, but I hope that explains. Wayne, I it's difficult for me to answer individual questions like this, but again, I you know, my uh my thesis that a a a pre-charged pneumatic rifle was used, I'm not denying that a supersonic rifle was also fired. I've said many times that that would have been electronically timed or somehow synchronized with the firing of the kill shot to distract the eyewitnesses and also the audio forensics. They would anticipate all of that. So, there definitely was a rifle fired. I don't know why people can't get their heads around this. Again, it's either ignorance, misunderstanding, or social engineering. But I mean, you know, there are certain people who shouldn't be this stupid who are people like Zeb, people like Candace, people like Ian. Why do they keep ignoring all this evidence that we've been talking about for a month? I mean, if they really want to get to the bottom of this. So, just to finish the idea that I was getting at with Ryan and the whole notion of trying to resolve why this Charlie Kirk assassination is so important that we would have an army jet there and all of these, you know, potential social engineers around the thing. It just seems like too much of a big deal for somebody who wasn't the president, wasn't a presidential candidate. What if it's intended to kick off World War II? Use it in social media to socially engineer people. Get idiots like Ryan to polarize everyone. Jason is Jewish, so let's make him take a position in the Israel versus Palestine thing. Even if he doesn't really talk about it, doesn't really know about the politics of it, and doesn't try to involve himself in it. We're going to force him to get involved. That's exactly what was going on on Tyler's podcast. I had to tell him four times, "Dude, I'm here to talk about Meg video evidence, not to be hijacked into this conversation that these insulting, bigoted morons wanted to be." And then that guy Tyler, he had the audacity to try to apologize to me the next day. It's like, "Listen, man. No, I'm never doing anything with you again." He's clearly a social engineer and he was aligned with Blake. So, it's just very interesting to me that all these people run in the same circles, promote each other, the same ideas. By the way, I I' I've demonstrated I'll go on these people's shows even if I disagree with large amounts of things that they say because I think there might be common ground that we could find. there might be things that we could learn from each other. I tried to demonstrate that with Gary at the beginning of all this when I was trying to explain to him something that he either still is too stupid to understand or deliberately ignores which is the difference between shutter speed, frame rate. Basically that uh Chris Martinston still also says, "Oh, these bullets would be a streak. this video that um Trigger Happy Matt did today is saying, "Oh, well, in 120th of a second, it's like, dude, why are you dealing with two week old research? Why are you bringing out this guy's email from one day before I first of all, it's incorrect even two weeks ago, but you bring it out on October 16th when October 17th was the day that I got that evidence. October 20th was the day I wrote that extremely detailed technical paper explaining even more clearly and more definitively with more technical citations to the patent from Dolby to the marketing information from Apple. That explains why it's there. Why did you ignore all that, Matthew? And will you now do a video about that like you did about this anonymous emailer? You know, now that Candace is telling everybody to go listen to Ryan, will she explain that she wants people to listen to Ryan because he's a bigoted [ __ ] who just simply won't listen to a person because they're Jewish? How would Candace like it if people said, "No, don't listen to her. She's a woman and she's black and she's married to a white guy." Is that a fair reason to not listen? She might be the smartest person in the world. >> Yeah. if you're interested in the answer, why would you care about all that personal stuff? So, I just don't think these are authentic responses. Whether or not these are authentic people is perhaps a different question, but that's the evidence around all the evidence. She's promoting Zeb Boyin. She's promoting Ryan Mada. These are all the people who are telling you not to listen to what I say. These are all the people telling you not to go to crowdsource thetruth.org and upload your original evidence files or get involved in the evidence bounty if you think you can disprove what I'm saying with a scientific and rational technically backed and and technically explained detailed counter thesis. You still have a week to win $3,500. Excuse me. Not to win. It's not a contest. You can claim the bounty. >> You can also boost that bounty. If you think I'm correct and you want to support crowdsource the truth, there's so much social engineering around don't send money to that. Frankly, I think that's one of the best reasons to send money. You could send a dollar, you could send a hundred. People have sent 500 to that. Just go to crowdsource.org. You can use cryptocurrency or your credit card. You can also sponsor the show just by going to crowdsource.substack.com and becoming a sponsor or paypal.me/crowdsource the truth. Can also sponsor the show and access sponsor exclusive content on subscribestar.com or patreon.com/crowdsource the truth. And of course, people who are following me on XJ_CST can subscribe. Uhoh, just lost sound for a second. That was weird. We might have lost the show. I hope not. Is it still going? I was about to say uh seem to have avoided the technical problems. I hope someone's got a question here asking for three events which are objective to be explained. Wayne, I can't read all these comments here and I can't, you know, this is not like online personal tech support. You might want to go to BetterHelp or one of those things. They don't sp they don't sponsor this show, but they are somebody I see sponsoring lots of different stuff. So, thanks everybody for tuning in. I appreciate it. Appreciate everybody who's sponsoring the show. Send me an email if you have questions. And I mean, again, I don't really have time to answer everybody's individual questions, but if they're worthwhile questions, I'll try to answer them in a future video. Most of this stuff has been explained. I see a lot of really kind of uh obstinate people who want to ask. Okay, still on. Thank you, Flex. Good. But just in time to wrap it up. Thanks for watching everybody.