and wow, >> social engineers on X and on YouTube and elsewhere are losing their minds over the evidence bounty. this challenge that I've put forward, you know, looking for better evidence in the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation. I think a lot of people don't get it. >> You know, I mean, it's not like you're right or something to participate in it. And nobody has to if they don't want to. If you don't like me, if you don't like the terms I've laid out, ignore the whole thing. But yet there are people, mostly people operating fake named accounts. Some people operating seemingly authentically named accounts, but they're coming in with all kinds of stupid things. Now, let me clarify. A lot of people saw I had Charles in the we did an instudio video yesterday, one of our classics, the future of garbage. We did uh you know, classic format. Charles going through the financial data of Turning Point USA. Lot of questions there, a lot of big money that seems to be not properly accounted for. And obviously, you know, we had that uh internal email that was published on X which seems to indicate and it looks authentic that Charlie Kirk was planning a big audit of his organization. Now, if somebody in there was stealing millions of dollars and uh there was going to be an audit, that could mean jail. So again, this sort of leads us to potential motive. If you are criminally minded, and I'm not accusing anybody in particular. I'm just saying if there are criminals stealing money who are then faced with the prospect of spending maybe, I don't know, decades in jail, starts to become potentially a motive to kill the guy who's going to be putting you there. I don't know who that is, who's doing that. I don't know where the money went. I don't know if it did or didn't happen, but we see all this suspicious activity around the money. That's motive. Okay. A lot of people have seen the security guards doing suspicious things. Again, I'm not accusing them, but they certainly had the opportunity. They're standing all around him controlling access to him. Motive means an opportunity. This is what every detective novel ever talks about. Not >> crazy theories that you start with and then try to make them stick. So >> yeah, I was telling Charles at the end of the show yesterday and people might not have seen this cuz it was on the sponsor exclusive segment, you got to sponsor the show. If you like the research that I'm doing and you want it to keep going, please become a sponsor on subscribestar.com or patreon.com/crowdsource the truth. It's only five bucks a month. Everything else is going up. Finally, some things I noticed are going down at the supermarket. Coffee went from, you know, like a dollar down and something else I was looking at down a dollar. So, Crowd Source the Truth has stayed the same price. $5 a month. Subscribestar.com or patreon.com/crowdsource thetruuth or crowdsource.substack.com or if you follow me on xjg_cst. You can subscribe there. $5 a month you're going to get the sponsor exclusive content. But I was explaining the essence of this to Charles yesterday and I'll play it for everybody in case you missed it. The reason why this is important, Charles, is because this thing has graduated to a thesis. The fact that we've got these three projectiles that are so equidistant in the video, and the fact that I started talking in such specific terms about how this video was recorded, how this video was transcoded, the specific people who were involved in that did not come forward with, you know, some here's a reason why I'm not suspicious at all. They each became more suspicious and acted in a way that made me more suspicious when I started talking about this. This is a thesis now. The purpose of it now is I think the only way this can be disproven is if the original evidence comes forward. And the thing is, if the video is ostensively shot by a college student, this dollar amount should bring forward an honest college student who recorded this on their phone and say, "Oh yeah, I heard about you're the guy with the almost $3,000 bounty for the original video. Here it is." And obviously, you know, a month out there's a lot of I'd be suspicious that somebody would tamper with metadata, but I'm also confident that I could figure that out. No one's come forward and said, "Here's the original video." >> So, that's it right there. >> No one has come forward with the original video. And I guess a lot of people misconstrued what I wrote there. Oh, by the way, the bounty has already gone up. because some people saw that and said, "Yeah, that makes sense, Jason." So now it's $2,760 and the terms are laid out there. If you can't read or you're too lazy to read or you read things and don't understand them, then don't participate. I'm talking to the people who are seeking to scoop the bounty, to claim the bounty. There's a lot of people coming at me who obviously haven't read this. Huge thank you to the people who have been boosting the bounty. They get it. People who are putting money into this with either cryptocurrency. So far, nobody's done cryptocurrency, but you can use any cryptocurrency through that uh now payments or any credit card with uh PayPal. But you don't need to have a PayPal account. You can use any credit card there. The point is people who are listening to me say, "Hey, this is a good idea, Jason, because you're saying if someone can bring forward the evidence to disprove your thesis about the video being recorded at 240 frames per second and that explaining how we've captured the images of this projectile the moment before it strikes Charlie in the back of the head and comes out the front of his neck, killing him." That's the thesis. That's what you have to disprove. There are a bunch of random idiots. >> What do we have here? >> Someone tell Brian. >> So, >> what is going on in there, gentlemen? >> Uh Ryan from the office, the show The Office, he is uh doing the live performance and stuff. Brian from the show The Office is doing a live performance. >> Calling it, baby. I don't know. I'm calling it. >> Can we see him there? >> Oh, yeah. That is the guy from the office. >> Who is it? >> It's Brian from the office. Brian, that obviously means something to you. But who who is he? There he is. Can you see him? >> You never heard of the office? >> I've heard of the office, but what is he doing here? >> No idea, >> right? That's what I'm getting at. >> Do you know what's going on? >> He's doing the wrist face. He's doing the wrist face. >> Do you guys have something to do with this? >> What is it? >> Um Brian is our CFO for the day. >> Who are you? >> I'm just a guy. >> Ramp. What is it? This is bad advertising if nobody knows where it is. >> We're we're a corporate card expense management organization. So we do all finance for your business. >> So Brian is there doing something people love it. So all right it's obviously I don't get it but huge success. >> So there I don't know they did a bad job of explaining it. Let me get Oh look at that nice dog. Let let me get back to explaining my thing. So the point is It's not for random, you know, anonymous Twitter accounts to say, "Oh, dude, I'm going to be honest with you. Some guy posted on my ex saying, "Oh, I'm going to be honest with you. I already disproved what you're saying. Go watch my 2hour video." No, I'm not. No, it's not about some other video that you have. You've got to have this original video. People saw what I was saying to Charles and they said, "Hey, Jason, this makes sense. This is a brilliant idea." Whoever has that original video should be motivated to come forward for $2,760 and provide the original video. See, the thing is it's it's actually not just about disproving what I'm saying. This method will prove or disprove what I'm saying. And I allege that's why nobody legitimate is coming forward. But I've been having a lot of people who don't like the terms and don't like me and you know they want to uh change the terms and negotiate with me. No, that's not what it's about. A lot of people telling me, "Oh, you have to send me your videos so that I can debunk." I'm saying, "No, I'm not the original source of these videos. I got them from Zeb." And by the way, it's not just no. We had a very good example today. >> Had a guy came at me with an account that was suspicious. It was, you know, not a real person's name. It was just a pretty new account. And he's like, "Oh, I see you're ignoring this guy in the white with the gun. Why are you ignoring me? I keep sending you messages." So I said, "All right, this is the first message I've seen from you." I went I DM' the guy on Twitter to this seemingly anonymous account. and I said, "This is the first message I've seen from you. Here's a DM. Send me your phone number and let's talk about what you've got." >> Guy sent me his phone number right away. I called him up. I said, "What's your name?" He told me. He explained why the account is new. He hadn't been using Twitter, but when this event happened, he saw the videos and he knew right away this video was doctorred. And so, he's got a screen capture. And I said, "Let me stop you right away." First of all, he wasn't on and on about the $2,700. And in fact, when we got to the end of the conversation, he said he's not even trying to compete for the money. He just wants to know what was going on. So, what we got to was this is a guy who immediately gave me his phone number when I asked for it, immediately told me his name when I asked for it, and when I stopped him in his tracks and said, "Let me stop you right there. If you've got a screen capture of the video, you don't have the original video. And it was actually a very productive conversation because just like I've said before, when I was dealing with Adam Bartholomew, he didn't know me. He didn't know what I was calling him about. There's a lot of good reason in 2025 to be suspicious of strangers who call you up. So when you get through the initial awkward phase of a cold contact, which I did with this person who's Izzy on Twitter on X, and I he explained to me why that was the Twitter name and told me his real name. And what we got to was we both agreed that we saw the video and for different reasons felt that the video had been manipulated. And what was interesting that indicated to me that this was a real and sincere person was that when I explained to him that having a screen capture of the video, it it's not the original evidence. So that can't be verified. All these people who don't have the original video, you don't even qualify for the challenge because it's not about you coming up with another theory that you think is better than mine. You have to disprove what I'm saying. And that is going to inherently require that you have the original video. People remember I called Samir Massie because he claimed to have the original video. And when that claim was challenged in my effort to verify the claim, he refused. Why? Now he and I were only talking about $250 initially. I offered him a hundred. He didn't know about the bounty. I offered him a 100. He said, "Haha, 250." So I said, "Fine." We even got to 350. And he didn't say, "No, 500, a,000." He just said, "I don't want to give it to you." Unclear why, but people heard that conversation with Samir Masi. Then he said he's dealing with other people. Ah, this is a suka, but it's locked. That's not very inviting. Looks more like a jail. Anyway, that's a fall festival. Samir Mossi told me he was dealing with other people. And I had good reason to suspect that it would be Blake because Blake had already said he was in communication with UVU students and that he had obtained the uh you know that uh UVU review angle that Chris Martinson lauded as evidence of cavitation. And I explained to him, "No, it's just a camera shooting with a 160th of a second exposure time, which is very long in terms of momentary instantaneous high-speed events. And that resulted in motion blur that people misinterpreted as an explosion or cavitation. There's no evidence of this massive supersonic event causing huge cavitation that transfers the energy of the cavitation to the necklace that we don't even know if he's wearing." Somebody said that at the birthday that Erica Kirk said that Charlie was wearing a necklace. I didn't catch that. I'm going to have to watch it again. I did watch that. People say she's all kinds of things. She's a very good actress if she's not being sincere. When she talks about her interactions with their daughter, it's very difficult to not get choked up over that. Um, the daughter wanted to give him a cupcake and a stuffed animal for his birthday. It's so sad to think about this three-year-old child who can't possibly understand the implications of what has happened. But I didn't hear her say anything about Charlie wearing a necklace and a big heavy cross that was doing all that in his shirt. Even if it was, I don't believe that's what we were seeing. And people are stating these things definitively as if they know. And certainly they don't. But I just don't believe that cavitation of his neck is gonna transfer energy to a chain and then to a pendant on the chain and cause it to go flying all over the place. Maybe, but no one's really, we haven't had a physicist come forward and give any kind of scientific explanation of that. My point is I'm scientifically evaluating the video evidence and we haven't seen uh someone from the MEG standards group come forward or some data scientist from Sony or you know YouTube or Apple computer or something like that come forward and say well you know Jason's explanation of meg is incorrect because this that and the other thing nobody's done that it's people coming forward with stupid theories. Now, I don't know if people were watching this, but I was just a guest on Trigger Smart. Thank you to Matthew for having me on there. We did an interview. People should go check this out on YouTube. He's not on X or other platforms, but uh this was good. He I saw on his show the other day this also anonymous person sent him the same email they've been sending me where the person has basically gotten to my evidence and started emailing all kinds of people. This is another social engineer technique by the way. They say, "Oh, look at all this correct evidence and then here's a stupid conclusion." There's a lot of people who have been doing that. Like, hey, wow, this is a very like observation of facts and details. Hard to argue with arrival at a conclusion whether it's got to do with uh a drone conducting ISR, electronic warfare. Here's another angle on the office. Can we see the guy? I don't really get what this is. You know, there was certain somebody got on to the drone evidence and turned it into, oh, he was shot by a drone. That's not the conclusion. And it opened the door for every idiot social engineer in the world to say, oh, Jason is saying Charlie Kirk got shot by a drone. Did people notice how that became the story that that I somehow concluded that he was shot by a drone? It strikes me that that's intended to invalidate any kind of uh evidence or hypothesis I've brought forward about drones. It's a very George Web approach. Like when I say Imran Aan has a shed at 4809 Sprayer Street that's warehousing data because Laurel Everly sent me pictures from inside the house and we see that there's a Cox cable internet router there and Imran got all pissed off when the basement flooded and wouldn't let her look at the shed connected to the garage. Then George goes to the house and shows a completely different shed. Why? It's the exact same technique as me saying, "Hey, there's a Bluetooth low energy attack coming from a drone. That's a very plausible, probably true thing that happened." And somebody turns that into drones were shooting at Charlie Kirk, which is idiotic and unsupported by evidence and then gets pissed off when I don't agree with that. >> Weird. >> Whatever you want to do. The other thing is >> this guy again not using his real name didn't want to appear on the show with me >> on Trigger Smart and Trigger Smart agreed with me. Matthew at Trigger Smart agreed with me that that reduces the credibility. When somebody doesn't want to show up on video, he's like, "Oh, no. I want to be anonymous." Then why are you sending emails to everybody? Go do your job, be anonymous, and ignore all this. But you're injecting yourself to me to Trigger Smart. I saw Range Day Bro did an email, a video about this email today. Range Day Bro is showing my graphics. You know, it's it's conflating what I am talking about with this idiotic theory that some crucifix pendant stabbed him in the neck. That's pure stupidity. But it allows social engineers to conflate incorrect conclusions with my strong evidence in an effort to, you know, say, "Oh, that's been debunked." It's a Hillary Clinton technique. It's exactly what they tried to do when Charles began exposing really damaging evidence about the Clinton Foundation. They wanted Peter Smith to give Charles these 33,000 emails. And then what they would have done is they would have said, "Ah, these are all fake emails, so therefore everything Charles ever talks about is fake." But Charles was smart enough to never take those emails. See, these are techniques. And when you don't recognize them, people say, "Jason, why are you fighting with everyone?" I'm not fighting with everyone. I'm just discovering that I'm surrounded by so many social engineers, it sometimes takes 8 years for me to figure it out. It's very disappointing. There are tells, but just like with a cheating spouse or a cheating business partner, >> you don't want to admit it. And then there's people like, I knew that guy was a problem from way back. But that's also you can't, you know, there's a lot of people just say every person under the sun is a spook or a fed, and that's also not an accurate way to be, but whatever. So anyway, back to this evidence bounty. It's up to $2760. And to sharpen the explanation a bit, I'm not here to provide text support and real-time chat to every person who believes it's their right to participate. If you can't read that website and come up with a cohesive way to contact me, there are people who did it. this guy, Izzy, he contacted me and when he realized, yeah, I don't have the original evidence. You're right. I can't really prove or disprove this or that. So, you're just automatically disqualified. Don't even step up to the plate. Now, the reason that people are putting more money into it is because they realize this is smart. If there is a person at UVU, if it's Samir MSI or whoever who shot this video, $350 wasn't enough, $2,760 isn't enough, >> $3,000, can we get this thing up to $10,000? The point is, people who are going to crowdsource the truth.org, reading the terms of service and choosing to put somebody put $1 in there, that's fine. $10, $5. Somebody put$500. Thank you very much for that. Read the terms of service and understand them. And if you think I'm right, this is a good way to prove it because it's just like my whole lawsuit with the Beaver County District Attorney. Okay. I saw the photograph on the roof that the police and the ATF said, "This is Thomas Krooks." I said, "No, it isn't. This is a manipulated photograph. Where's the original photo from Detective Gian Veto's phone? They didn't even think I would know that it was Detective Richard Gianvito who took the photo. But because they're so stupid and sent me their own unredacted report, I had all the names and phone numbers of all the cops and federal agents involved. That's how I was able to call uh Richard, what's his name? Uh Raphael Eduardo Castro and found out about the drones in Butler. or at least they had a counter UAS drone operator. What was he doing there? They seem to come up with a whole crazy story about him not having an RJ45 cable. That's so stupid. This guy's some kind of special operator with the Air Force and his high technology thing failed cuz he had a bad network cable. I don't believe that you don't have 50 of those in your car. I don't believe that. It seems like something that they do all the time, which is as things start to get figured out, they come up with new and different stories to try to cover their tracks. But anyway, this is the same in that when I did that right to know lawsuit and the police lost and were ordered to give me that photo from Gian Veto's phone, of course, they didn't comply. And I mean, look, I stood down on that lawsuit. I've spoken about this because Trump himself said he's satisfied with the investigation and it's not moving forward. If he said Cash Patel's number one thing is going to be to find out who actually was shooting in Butler, I would have continued with the lawsuit. But how many times can I drive to Pennsylvania to to Pittsburgh? It costs money. It takes time. And I just came to the conclusion that no matter how many times I win this lawsuit, the cops are going to either say they destroyed the evidence and then what? I'm just never going to get it. Because if I were wrong, they would have presented it right away. They would have said, "Jason is an idiot. Here's the original 432x 20ou uh 30024 highresolution photo from Gian Veto's phone. Here's the metadata that proves it's the same photo that was taken at whatever time, 700 pm on July 13th. You'd look at it, you'd be able to corroborate that stuff. There'd be nothing suspicious about it and you'd say, "Okay, here's the original photo." And if it looked exactly like the one they presented in the report, I'd be proven wrong. But they didn't do that. So at a certain point that evidence that I've just spoken about it rises to the level of proof. Certainly in the court of public opinion I think a lot of people agree it does. That's another major problem is that a lot of people don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. It's the same people who are coming at me on Twitter demanding that I give them videos that this is not fair and in the interest of transparency, I need to give them the videos. I'm not getting into these negotiations about transparency with people who won't even tell me their name and give me their phone number. What kind of transparency are we talking about if you're using a encrypted email address and a fake name? I mean, I this is not my first week of doing this. These are obviously people who are trying to deceive me. And ultimately the question becomes why are there so many deceitful people coming at me and trying to attack this effort rather than the one person who recorded the video coming forward and saying, "Hey, you know, there's all this chatter on the internet and you've been contacting people on TikTok. Somehow Blake is able to get to these people. I got to the guy who claims to have recorded. It's Samir Masi. I've played it on here before. People can go back and listen. JG_CST, you can hear me talking to Samir MSI. Everyone I've spoken to about that phone call thinks he's acting very suspiciously. >> It doesn't make sense to me that if there was nothing wrong with the video that the guy and Blake who claimed to have it. Not only that, Chris Martinsson said, "This proves that Jason manipulated evidence and lied to everybody and needs to apologize to Clayton Morris and needs to apologize to Owen Shroyer and the audience and repent." And he said all kinds of stupid crazy things, Chris Martinsson. But when I called Blake to verify the evidence as it says on the website and to clarify my language in my sole discretion, my professional whatever it says there, that means when I call you up and say, "Okay, do you have the video? Do you have the metadata? Did you get it from Samir MSI who claims to record it?" if the answer was yes and the person would send it to me like this guy who goes with Izzy on Twitter gave me his phone number right away told me his name right away when I explained to him I get it that you did a screen capture on September 10th right after the shooting but that's not original evidence he thought be and I'm not criticizing him I'm saying he thought because he had captured it from the internet so closely after the event that that made it better evidence And what I explained to him was, look, this is the Ricky Diaz, I am Ricky Diaz video. And he had communicated with I am Ricky Diaz. Um, it doesn't make it better evidence because the point is, how did I am Ricky Diaz get that right away? That was one of the guys who went viral with it. There was someone else who I saw who had this video right away. How did these guys get it? How did Zeb get it? who transcoded it and why does ABC News think Samir MSI owns it? Samir MSI on the phone told me he recorded that video. So, either he's lying or he's telling the truth. If he's telling the truth, why didn't he want to sell a copy of it to me for $250 or $350? Why isn't he coming forward now and saying, "Okay, I'll sell it to you for $2,760." Why did Blake freak out when I asked him if he got it from Samir Mossi and say, "I don't care about your bounty. I don't want the money. Don't ever call me again." And he hung up. If it's because he only cares about the truth, I I'll give him the money. He doesn't have to care about the money. I'm trying to find a truth. That's the point. So, people think this is a bet. People think this is a contest. It's literally a job offer. It's a job offer. If I said, "Hey, I'm doing a video production for a day and I need a steady cam operator and I'm offering $2,760 to complete this task." Is every steady cam operator in the world entitled to that job? >> If someone calls me and says, "I'm a steady cam operator." And I say, "Okay, what's your name and can you send me your resume?" And they refuse to do that. Do I now negotiate with that person? It's like, get off the damn phone. If you don't want the job, if you can't do the job, if you can't meet the requirements, I have no time to waste with you. And you know what? And this has happened, too. If the steadyic cam operator is like, "Oh, Dubai. Well, I have to fly this way and that way, and what if this?" Sometimes people are just asking too many damn questions for me to want to deal with them. And I keep coming back to this guy Izzy because he's a great example. It's not about, you know, people are saying, "Oh, you're never going to give the money." Well, that falls into the category of if you even think that, why are you dealing with me? If you don't trust me, if you don't like me, ignore what I'm saying. Ignore this evidence bounty and go away. But if you want to engage, some other guy says, "Yeah, dude. I already debunked you. Watch my 2hour video. You know, this is not an open invitation for every [ __ ] in the world to come on Crowdsource the Truth and surprise me with some kind of activity that's likely to get the channel banned or embarrass me or do any of the numerous stupid things that social engineers might plan to do. It's about finding a serious person. And it's also not about you think your idea is better than mine. Range Day Bro, who I spoke to on the phone, he's a nice guy. He was showing all of my evidence from this guy's email, basically agreeing with everything that I'm saying, even elements of this alleged autopsy report that apparently nobody has seen, agree with elements of my theory that it would have uh, you know, damaged his C2 vertebrae. Range Day Bro shows photos from the email which came from my that composite image of the bullets, but he thinks that the shooter is coming from the roof of some other building. And other people arrive at these theories because they're like, "Well, this would make sense cuz it's hidden from public." And you know, they're just like guessing. They are guessing. I'm not guessing. In order to disprove what I'm saying, you would have to explain how we have three photographs of what appears to be a projectile. The instant before multiple things, including him collapsing and blood shooting out of his neck and an alleged autopsy, a thing goes and right through the back of his neck. that decorticate posture that even professional [ __ ] Chris Martinson says is an indication of an instant neurological trauma, spinal or brain injury. All of that is accounted for by my thesis. Okay. The the projectile penetrates from the rear, damages the C2 vertebrae. It's on video. How did it get there? So again, to to put a point on the statement, on the assertion, one guy had an issue. This guy seemed to be using his real name, but I I don't know that that means he's not a social engineer, and I'm pretty sure I saw him in uh Defense of Blake Xpace. He's telling me, "Oh, no. You have to write out your thesis and publish it on the website." It's like, "Listen, [ __ ] I don't have to do anything. If you don't like the terms that I've laid out, don't participate. I'm not here to negotiate on your nitpicking. You have to explain how these three in a line dots got there. People have already attacked that saying they're not in a perfect line. I've explained multiple times how that happened. Two of them came from the 20 frames per second video. One of them came from the 30 frames per second video. The fact that those two different videos from the same exact angle with the same exact camera motion exist with different frames of them that is evidence that there is a higher frame rate video somewhere. We don't have all of the frames in the 30 frames per second video and we don't have all of the frames in the 20 frames per second video. That's where I came to this mathematical that's basically proven. That's like video algebra. We would not have all those frames if they weren't derived from a higher frame rate video. The craziest part is even some of the people who have disagreed with me, Zeb is disagreeing with me while he's confirming my findings, but he doesn't know how he he's making up nonsense on the fly. He said, "Well, this video has a bleed frame in it." What the hell are you talking about, Zeb? What is a bleed frame? I mean, that's a term he made up, but what he's trying to say is it's imagery from multiple frames bleeding together into one. All right, I essentially agree with that. Where did that imagery come from? The MPEG encoder doesn't invent dots flying in a straight line. Oh, yeah. Here's the other thing. So, people are like, "Oh, it couldn't have come from the tunnel." That's a guess. I'm not saying I know exactly where. And then they say, "Well, you have to you you can't start with a bullet. You have to say where the shooter is." I don't have to do anything. I'm looking at evidence and I'm saying, "Hey, this is evidence that a 500 ft per second approximately projectile was fired at the back of his neck. Now, blood shot out of the front of his neck and he killed over dead." Some people say, "Oh, he's not even dead. He went down a trap door." Uh, I mean, you know, how fantastic do we want to get with this? I think he's dead. I Some people say, "Oh, there was no blood." Like, what are you talking about? It looked to me like somebody turned on a faucet and blood was pouring out of the guy's neck. I don't understand some of this nonsense. But people say, "Oh, you know, it doesn't line up with the tunnel." So, this this was the thumbnail for today. Look at what I've got right here. This is an image from Turning Point USA, right after Charlie was killed that show or maybe before. I don't know exactly when it's from, but it's from Turning Point. We should find out. Here it is with the back of the thing open. Look at that. Doesn't it look like he's got an angle? Someone could be tucked behind that open door of the SUV right in the corner there that I've blown up on the inset. That looks to me like you could have gotten the angle on the back of Charlie's neck from there. Again, I'm not saying the shooter was definitely in the back of the van uh during Trigger Smart's video. when we were recording it, I I couldn't see what he was showing me, but I saw it on the playback and he's saying, "Hey, you know, when this door of the van opens, it sort of blocks the view potentially of somebody standing up at the end of the tunnel in this position." Now, that's interesting. Again, I don't know. Here, we're looking at a 2D photo. Could you reach Charlie from there? There's the tent. And I'm not suggesting that it went through the tent. I'm saying we had a camera pointed at the back of Charlie's head. Somebody else said, "Oh, yeah. My theory blows you away because you don't explain the laser on the back of Charlie's head." Well, first of all, not explaining the laser does not refute my theory in any way, and I didn't actually see a laser on the back of Charlie's head. But I never denied that one could be there. In fact, I even said if someone was at that position where the guy was standing up on the gravel and they had a PCP rifle with a laser sight on it and they had a Wi-Fi connection to that camera that Candace Owens has seen, that thing was looking right at the back of his neck. You could be not even looking at him, point the gun over there, and when on your phone screen, it would pick up that infrared laser dot >> because we've spoken about this many times. Digital cameras can see infrared light, >> even infrared light that's invisible to the human eye. So, if you had a one inch, >> if it's a 50 caliber bullet, if you had a one inch window where you could see that laser dot from all the way at the end of the tunnel on the back of Charlie's head, you could fire in between Dan Flood and the wall of the tunnel, right to the back of his neck like that. you might have been able to make the shot from standing up on that gravel with the targeting camera on his head. So, there's a lot of people who are making a lot of assertions, but so far there's nobody who wants to come forward with their real name to verify the evidence and act like a regular person. It's all a bunch of, you know, fake named anonymous email, anonymous exac account, you know, Twitter trolls, social engineering trolls who are getting pissed off because they realize this is a smart way to prove that people are lying about this video evidence. And why? If it was a student at UVU who recorded that video >> or a person in the neighborhood who came to the event, just a regular person and not some clandestine operative shooting it as a, >> you know, reconnaissance video or as a video to be manipulated and put out very quickly. like this is where they got the video that was disseminated through I am Ricky Diaz and Zeb. Now I haven't been able to reach I am Ricky Diaz. I emailed him on uh maybe Instagram or Tik Tok or some messaged him on there. I don't know how this guy Izzy got to him but he basically said that you know I am Ricky Diaz didn't know where he got the video from. So, what's with that? >> Nobody knows where this video came from. >> That's why I'm making so much noise about this and putting so much money behind it. Remember, it's a thousand of my own dollars. If whoever gave this video to Zeb, Zeb can't remember who he got it from. If whoever gave this video to I am Ricky Diaz, Ricky Diaz can't remember who he got it from. There's another guy, Salah, somebody or other. All these guys had videos out on September 10th. It's almost as if somebody took that video, rushed it back to their editing suite, put out the 20 frame version, edited a vertical video version, the vertical video version, they've introduced some shake to it. Cuz remember when when uh Zeb first had the vertical version and he was like, "Oh, I'm trying to stabilize it." I was like, "Wait a minute. This isn't a different video." He first told me it was a different video from somebody who must have been standing right next to him cuz it's from the same angle, but it moves differently. He said, "It's got a different dimension to it." I was like, "What the hell are you talking about? It's got two dimensions, width and height." Like, what what other dimension does it have? I think what he was describing cops on the Highline. You don't see that too often. I think what he was describing were the additional frames. He means it had certain elements of motion to it that the other video didn't have. Now again, I'm not saying that Zeb did something malicious to this video. He got upset when I started asking him questions that he couldn't answer and he acted like a jerk and he called me a Jew, which in my opinion that doesn't make him look too good. But he doesn't remember where he got the evidence from. And then eventually the person he told me he got the evidence from said, "Oh, I got it from Zeb." So there's a lot of confusion surrounding this evidence. I'm trying to disambiguate that by offering money. Samir Msi doesn't want the money. Uh our buddy uh Blake doesn't want the money. And how did that play out? You know, our uh our other buddy Chris Martinson. >> He said to me on the phone, I'll watch your material and then we'll have a debate. I invited him to that debate with Owen Schroyer because I wanted to have a serious debate with someone who was ostensibly serious, but he didn't do that. I I think that uh Chris Martinson set that up as a smear deliberately because what did he do right away when he lost that debate? 68.6% of uh several hundred of Owen Shroyer's viewers who were pled on that felt that I won the debate. And Trigger Smart told me that he felt that way too and a lot of his viewers felt that way too. and that Chris Martinson might have been buttth hurt over that in Trigger Smart's words. But again, that wasn't even my point. In that whole phone call with Chris Martinson, which I did release, I said to him, look, I know it's being build as a as a debate, but I'm looking at it more as just a sharing of information because I think I can help answer some questions that you had. You know, maybe this was foolish, maybe this was naive, maybe this was me doing the Stannislovski method and not knowing it, but I actually wanted that debate with Chris Martinson to go well and then do shows with Chris Martinson. He has a big platform. Obviously, if he said, "Oh, you know what, Jason, this makes sense. Let's do an episode on my show about it and talk about it." I think that would have benefited me more than Chris Martinson making smear videos about me and and hundreds of social engineering accounts coming at me in a negative way. But Martinson didn't do that. Martinson immediately released his completely false and frankly ignorant video where he alleged that I presented the frames out of order. I've already explained how I didn't do that. I've already explained how the meg encoding error that was likely introduced by all of these transcoding shenanigans. Two biggest suspects in that are Zeb and Samir MSI. Blake in close third place position. But any of that weird transcoding could have introduced that out of time frame, the bullet, you know, appearing to move in reverse. I couldn't believe that Cullen, rather than calling me up and having a discussion about it, kept publicly posting in conflict with me that, "Oh, it's moving in reverse." It's not. >> I mean, that's either super stupid or directly working with my enemies. Which is it? >> Social engineering to kill this information. It's what it seems like. Suddenly, it's very windy. And what did Martinson say? What was his conclusion? Oh, this information comes from Blake Bednars, the video genius working in the insurance industry. Go uh give the money to Blake, Jason. So, in good faith, I called up Blake to verify his evidence and he refused. Okay, so back to our friend Izzy. Izzy called me up. He had a position. We spoke about it. He realized he was wrong. And we started out on a pretty adversarial footing with him accusing me of ignoring his information on X. And I said, "Look, you got to understand you had a new account, fake name. I got a lot of weird idiots coming at me." And he was like, "No, I get it." Then his girlfriend got on the phone. She was very friendly. We all had a nice conversation. And by the end of it, he realized where I was coming from. That's how regular people act, right? Adam Bartholomew. He's got a YouTube channel called Adam Bartholomew. I look him up on the internet. I find a phone number linked to Adam Bartholomew. I call him. Obviously, anyone has a reasonable suspicion of a stranger calling them up asking about video they've recorded of a murder. But once we got through that, he was quite polite. And I think I've forged a professional, friendly relationship with Adam Bartholomew. I'd call him up if I was going to Utah and seek to do an episode with him. I'd take him out to dinner. He's a nice guy and he is the Abraham recruiter of this. I haven't heard Chris Martinson say that. Remember how Chris Martinson was going on and on and on about the stupid puditive crackhead unsteady Dave? Unsteady Dave. What was his name? Stewart. Unsteady Dave. Stewart. >> Martinson said, "Oh, he's the He's the Abraham Zapruder of Butler, Pennsylvania. No, he's not. He didn't record anything that was useful in solving any aspect of that. And he's another guy. When I asked him for the original footage, he wouldn't provide it. He only wanted to give these edited versions. Super evasive. Said he was doing some documentary or something. Where is that? When did that ever come out? So, look, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of all this. People who are getting pissed off, these social engineers who are losing their minds over the evidence bounty, they make no sense to me. Pay no attention to me. If you don't like me, ignore this evidence. This is like if I put up a job looking for a steadyic cam operator and you're not a steadyic cam operator or you don't want to travel to where the job is happening or some you don't like me, you don't like whatever the project is about, why are you contacting me >> makes no sense. But if you are one of the people who agrees that this is the only sensible way to either get to the original evidence or get to a point where this bounty is so large. I think it's already there. It just makes no sense to me that a college student who we already know Samir Masi claims to be the originator of the video. Why doesn't he want to come forward? I'll contact him again and say we've got this evidence bounty. I mean, he's so suspicious now. He obviously didn't record it. We have that evidence of him inside the building. We don't need to contact him again. We need to find out who shot this video. I mean, why is everybody so evasive about that? But that's the purpose of the evidence bounty. And if you agree with me, please go to crowdsource.org, or read the terms and conditions >> and use your credit card or use your uh cryptocurrency of your choice to increase that bounty by any amount at all. And by November 4th, when that number is like whatever it is, I like I said, I think it's already there. Doesn't make sense to me that a college student would not want to claim almost $3,000 just by sending a copy of a video on their phone. Think about it. The the upload portal for sending the file is on that same website. It would take 2 seconds for somebody to send it. And if the evidence gets verified, I'll gladly send them this money and then we'll make videos about having the original video. Anyway, that's it. Thanks for watching everybody. Don't forget to sponsor the show. Go to crowdsource.substack.com >> or go to subscribestar.com or patreon.com/crowdsource thetruuth. Have a great night everybody.
