[00:00] Cuz now let's get to the new and juicy
[00:02] details that just came out last night
[00:04] about this magical bullet.
[00:07] >> American conspiracy theories are
[00:08] dangerous.
[00:09] >> Information is the oxygen of the
[00:12] Democrat with Republicans, with
[00:14] progressives, with libertarians. Because
[00:16] this is not about right and left. This
[00:19] is about right and wrong.
[00:21] [Music]
[00:25] >> It's so sick when we can't talk. Our
[00:28] security is at stake.
[00:36] >> So, Andrew Kulvit, co-host of the
[00:38] Charlie Kirk Show,
[00:41] very much in the know here. He dropped
[00:44] this miraculous tweet that has just made
[00:48] the official story go from dumb to
[00:51] dumber.
[00:54] I want to address some of the discussion
[00:56] about the lack of an exit wound with
[00:57] Charlie. I'm usually not interested in
[00:59] delving into most of this kind of online
[01:01] chatter, and I apologize if this is
[01:02] somewhat graphic, but in this case, the
[01:04] fact that there wasn't an exit wound is
[01:06] probably another miracle, and I want
[01:07] people to know. I just spoke with the
[01:10] surgeon who worked on Charlie in the
[01:11] hospital. He said the bullet absolutely
[01:13] should have gone through.
[01:17] He said that the bullet absolutely
[01:18] should have gone through which is very
[01:20] very normal for a high-powered high
[01:21] velocity round. I've seen wounds from
[01:24] this caliber many times and they always
[01:25] just go through everything. This would
[01:27] have taken a moose or two down, an elk,
[01:30] etc. But it didn't go through. Charlie's
[01:32] body stopped it. I mentioned to this
[01:34] doctor that there were dozens of staff,
[01:36] students, and special guests standing
[01:37] directly behind Charlie on the other
[01:39] side of the tent. And he replied, "It
[01:41] was an absolute miracle that someone
[01:42] else didn't get killed. His bone was so
[01:45] healthy and the density was so
[01:46] impressive that he's like the man of
[01:49] steel.
[01:51] It should have just gone through and
[01:53] through. It likely would have killed
[01:54] those standing behind him, too. In the
[01:57] end, the coroner did find the bullet
[01:59] just beneath the skin.
[02:02] Just beneath the skin.
[02:05] Even in death, Charlie managed to save
[02:07] the lives of those around him.
[02:09] Remarkable. Miraculous.
[02:12] maybe even magic.
[02:17] Right.
[02:19] So
[02:21] now I would like to show you a video of
[02:24] what a 30 six round does to concrete to
[02:28] cinder blocks to be specific.
[02:34] All right, first shot. Ruger American
[02:36] 306 Winchester SuperX 180 grain round.
[02:40] Let's take a shot at these center blocks
[02:55] [Music]
[02:57] right there.
[02:59] And it split the
[03:01] >> So, just to clarify, it just split
[03:04] through three walls of concrete.
[03:09] Okay.
[03:11] These rounds are well known for going
[03:13] through animals, definitely through
[03:15] necks, right? That's not to mention all
[03:19] the blood splatter that would be on the
[03:21] back wall if a round like this had hit
[03:25] Charlie Kirk in the neck. Just to be
[03:28] blunt about it.
[03:32] Man of steel,
[03:36] right?
[03:38] So, what do we know about the wound
[03:41] based solely on video information from
[03:43] the public, ignoring all of the official
[03:46] narrative given to us by the government
[03:47] and everyone else?
[03:50] First off, we know that it looks a lot
[03:52] more like an exit wound than an entry
[03:54] wound. And that's not based on my
[03:56] analysis. I am not an expert. That's
[03:58] based on actual experts that are all
[04:00] over Twitter right now analyzing the
[04:02] wound. ex special forces, ex-military,
[04:05] people that have seen bullet wounds and
[04:06] know how these things work. And this is
[04:08] not complicated. It's not a secret. You
[04:10] can look it up for yourself. Entry
[04:12] wounds are usually smaller. They usually
[04:15] do not bleed immediately because the
[04:17] bullet is going through creating a
[04:18] pressure system. And the exit wound is
[04:20] usually bigger and bleeds immediately
[04:22] and usually has splatter and everything
[04:25] to go with it. Right? We know that
[04:28] Charlie goes into a stiff posture which
[04:31] would indicate that his spinal cord was
[04:33] severed. In addition to that, we have
[04:36] the sound in all of the recorded videos
[04:38] from people's cell phones that we could
[04:39] analyze. And we have frames in those
[04:43] videos hopefully showing what happened.
[04:46] And the internet nerds have been doing
[04:48] deep analysis of these videos.
[04:52] This is what's called a crackbang
[04:54] analysis. And we'll explain that in just
[04:56] a second. But basically, when you
[04:58] analyze the audio of a gunshot, there's
[05:02] two signatures that have a distinct
[05:05] difference in speed that you can measure
[05:07] the distance away from the shot that you
[05:10] are. You can't pinpoint exactly where
[05:11] the shot's coming from, but you can tell
[05:13] about how far away the shot is from you
[05:15] when it was fired. And so if you have
[05:18] three points where you have video of a
[05:21] shot, then you can triangulate wherever
[05:24] all three of those range circles
[05:27] intersect. That's probably where your
[05:30] shooter is located.
[05:32] And seven crackbanging analysis
[05:36] seem to be lining up with over here on
[05:41] Charlie's right, which we will look at
[05:43] in just a second.
[05:45] Now, this person has yet to make a video
[05:49] explaining their specific crackbang
[05:51] analyses and how they made these
[05:53] calculations, and I'm not going to
[05:55] pretend to be some expert at crackbang.
[05:57] Not my field of expertise at all. This
[05:59] is speculative at this point. This is
[06:01] not proven fact, but it is highly
[06:05] indicative that it's not lining up to
[06:07] the rooftop at all. Right. And I'm
[06:10] looking forwards to other experts
[06:12] double-checking this person's work. I'm
[06:15] sure that everyone that's looking at
[06:17] this stuff has already seen this guy's
[06:19] work. So, just really briefly, how
[06:21] crackbang works. Um,
[06:25] when a round is fired that goes more
[06:28] than the speed of sound, there is a
[06:30] crack initial signature that travels
[06:32] faster than the bang that follows, which
[06:36] is the actual.
[06:38] And I don't understand all the physics
[06:40] of it, but you can look it up. You can
[06:42] get educated for yourself. And there's
[06:44] two signatures and the distance between
[06:46] those two sound signatures can give you
[06:48] an estimate of how far away from the
[06:51] gunshot your camera was. Okay,
[06:54] he's got some of his calculations here
[06:56] that I'm not going to try to pretend to
[06:58] be an expert at.
[07:01] So,
[07:03] this is a photo of the crowd during the
[07:06] event over in the direction that that
[07:09] crackbang analysis would seem to
[07:10] indicate. it would be indicating
[07:12] something like this balcony or something
[07:15] like this rooftop. And listen, let's not
[07:18] put too much stock in this little bloop
[07:20] up there. But there is a bloop. That
[07:25] being said, there's all kinds of stuff
[07:26] going on over here. It's all very
[07:29] preliminary right now. And then if
[07:32] you've been paying attention,
[07:36] you've probably seen all these videos of
[07:40] what appear to be bullets captured in
[07:43] frames of cell phone video flying past
[07:46] Charlie. And in order to really get a
[07:49] sense of what the path that this alleged
[07:51] bullet would be taking, you have to kind
[07:53] of dig through a lot of these videos.
[07:55] But basically, this frame is showing it
[07:57] going down past his knee below him. And
[08:00] there's another frame that people have
[08:02] found with a bullet that appears to be
[08:04] coming in at him from behind. So, what
[08:08] the theory that this is developing would
[08:10] establish is a bullet coming
[08:13] down and in from back right side of
[08:15] Charlie, entering somewhere in the back
[08:18] of his neck and head, going down into
[08:21] his neck and probably hitting his spine
[08:23] and severing it. and then exiting out
[08:26] the front, which is the exit wound that
[08:28] we all saw. Then it would be passing
[08:31] down. Maybe it ch, you know, bullets
[08:33] change angles when they're inside of a
[08:34] body. And so that would theoretically
[08:37] explain how we see an exit wound on the
[08:39] front. And then in this video, you see
[08:42] the bullet kind of captured in one frame
[08:44] going down past his knee
[08:47] allegedly. So you make your own judgment
[08:49] call about this.
[08:51] They're going frame by frame and you can
[08:54] see it right over here by his knee
[08:56] passing in front of his black knee.
[08:59] It's there for like one frame plus some
[09:01] artifacting on the frames before and
[09:04] after.
[09:06] Okay, you can clearly see it passing in
[09:09] this direction downwards angle. That
[09:12] lines up pretty directly with the videos
[09:14] showing it incoming behind him a little
[09:16] bit above and back.
[09:19] So, we appear to have a bullet captured
[09:21] in two different frames
[09:24] passing through his neck in the right
[09:26] direction and angle coming from the
[09:28] direction that the crack bang analysis
[09:30] is indicating
[09:32] that seems to line up with everything
[09:34] that we're seeing from the actual video
[09:36] footage.
[09:39] But the skeptical mind would probably
[09:41] think, really? Like, you're saying that
[09:44] we're capturing bullets in cell phone
[09:47] videos? That can't be real, right?
[09:50] That's not how it actually works. That's
[09:52] not possible. You like, you'd have to go
[09:55] and test it to prove it. But we can ask
[09:58] AI to give us a little bit of context.
[10:00] And I thought it was helpful. So, I
[10:01] figured I would just ask, can you
[10:03] describe the chances of catching a
[10:04] bullet midair on camera with a standard
[10:07] iPhone camera shooting at 60 frames per
[10:09] second? Please give me an analysis of
[10:11] the chances of this happening with a
[10:12] round fired from pistols and fired from
[10:14] highowered hunting rifles shooting at
[10:16] 306. Right? Because we were told it was
[10:20] a 300 6 round fired from a rifle. But if
[10:23] the shots actually coming from the side,
[10:25] it's very possible we're talking about a
[10:27] suppressed round, about a subsonic
[10:29] round, about a pistol round, maybe some
[10:31] sort of mechanically mounted gun. It's
[10:33] really hard to say. We don't know. So
[10:36] figure we get a couple of different
[10:37] analyses here. And this is pretty basic
[10:39] math. This is not complicated. At 60
[10:41] frames per second, an iPhone camera
[10:42] captures each frame in approximately
[10:44] 16.67 milliseconds. Right? So velocity,
[10:49] distance traveled per frame, about 20
[10:51] ft. if it's a handgun round. So in the
[10:54] 16.67 millisecond exposure window, a
[10:57] bullet travels roughly 20 feet, right?
[10:59] For the 306 round, it travels roughly 47
[11:02] feet per frame, right? So it gave this
[11:05] probability analysis of like what would
[11:07] the chances of like a random bullet
[11:08] being captured in a random video. I was
[11:10] like, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up. That's
[11:12] not the question that we're asking,
[11:13] right? I reframed the question to say,
[11:17] listen, if you were filming with an
[11:19] iPhone camera at an like a 100 foot wide
[11:23] view, because this camera could see, you
[11:24] know, like probably more than 100 feet
[11:26] of the actual event. And we know that a
[11:28] bullet fires through its through its
[11:30] field of view, right? We're not asking
[11:33] like what are the chances that a bullet
[11:34] would randomly pass through a random
[11:36] camera's field of view. We're asking if
[11:37] a bullet was fired through an iPhone
[11:39] camera's field of view shooting at 60
[11:41] frames per second, what are the chances
[11:42] that one of those frames would have the
[11:45] bullet in it?
[11:48] So,
[11:50] a handgun round time to cross a 100 ft
[11:54] field of view would be 83.3
[11:56] milliseconds. So, there would be five
[11:58] frames through which the bullet would
[12:00] pass. The bullet would appear in
[12:03] multiple consecutive frames. For a 30
[12:06] six round, it would probably appear in
[12:08] about 2.1 frames. Under these
[12:11] conditions, the probability changes from
[12:13] astronomical odds to actual near
[12:15] certainty. A handgun would have 99%
[12:17] probability of appearing in at least one
[12:19] frame, likely three to five frames
[12:21] consecutively. That's obviously assuming
[12:24] that it's against a dark background with
[12:26] enough light bouncing off of it that you
[12:28] can see the bullet against its
[12:29] background. And in this case, both
[12:31] frames that we have the bullet appearing
[12:33] in, it's against Charlie's black pants
[12:35] in the light ladder frame. And in the
[12:37] frame before it impacts, it's against a
[12:39] man with a black shirt.
[12:43] We would expect it in three to five
[12:45] consecutive frames. And we see it in
[12:47] like one frame behind him, one frame on
[12:49] impact, maybe a frame inside of his
[12:52] neck, and a frame coming down past his
[12:54] knee,
[12:56] right? like
[12:58] that kind of lines up.
[13:02] So, as a general rule of thumb, anytime
[13:04] that someone gets shot in public in
[13:06] America and it's a big conspiracy and it
[13:08] seems like we're being lied to, it's
[13:10] probably worth following along with John
[13:12] Cullen. He broke a whole bunch of the
[13:14] stuff wide open about the Las Vegas
[13:16] shooting back in 2017. Um, and he
[13:19] certainly is getting involved in this
[13:20] one. Uh, John can be a bit of a pain. He
[13:24] can be a bit of an ass online, but he
[13:26] does some damn fine work. And he has
[13:28] been tracking a couple of developments
[13:30] on this story that basically no one else
[13:32] is talking about. And whether that's for
[13:35] some suspicious reason or because it's a
[13:37] little too nuanced and esoteric and
[13:39] people just haven't quite caught up to
[13:40] where Jon is at yet, I don't know. But
[13:43] let's take a quick look at some of these
[13:45] flying things that Jon is finding. Not
[13:48] just John, but Jon is at the front of
[13:50] this.
[13:52] So, I'm pretty sure that John has found
[13:54] a CIA spy plane. It sounds like him and
[13:57] Jason from Crowdsource the Truth have
[13:59] been zeroing in on this uh spy plane
[14:01] that just so happened to take a flight
[14:03] over there that is sort of in the
[14:05] pipeline for air launched drones because
[14:09] they've been finding a whole bunch of
[14:11] what look like drones in the footage.
[14:13] Like I think more than 10 instances at
[14:14] this point. Um and Jason is a
[14:17] professional at like optical analysis.
[14:20] um like technically analyzing video and
[14:22] sound. Uh John is extremely proficient
[14:25] at analyzing everything to do with a
[14:27] shooting case like this. And they're
[14:29] pulling out uh
[14:32] little pieces of stills out of the
[14:34] footage with little flying objects that
[14:36] are not it's not really clear what they
[14:38] are. Um see this is from a crowd search
[14:41] the truth video. So I don't really know
[14:42] what to make of it yet. um I haven't
[14:45] spent the time to kind of follow along
[14:46] super super closely with their
[14:48] investigation, but it's worth knowing
[14:50] about and it's worth looking into. It's
[14:52] um a little beyond the scope of what I'm
[14:53] talking about here today, but I'm
[14:55] keeping my eye on what they're doing um
[14:58] cuz they might be on to something.
[15:00] >> And I I got in touch with Jason. I said,
[15:02] "We have got to do a show together. You
[15:04] come on, please, hypothetically
[15:06] speaking, show everybody what you
[15:07] found." Walks us through five different
[15:10] UAVs. This is one of them. Uh you can if
[15:14] you look towards the top edge of the
[15:16] screen you see it in the actual what
[15:20] would you call it the actual uh what
[15:22] >> actual size this so yeah this is what I
[15:24] did for each of these John is I went
[15:27] through in a program called after
[15:29] effects which is like you know this is
[15:31] what you'd use to track motion picture
[15:34] footage if you were doing visual effects
[15:36] in you know any any movie so you know I
[15:39] was able to track these things down to a
[15:42] sub pixel level and then I uh isolated
[15:46] them, magnified them sometimes as much
[15:49] as 2,400%
[15:51] so we could just really see it whatever
[15:54] level of detail was there. So that's
[15:57] what we did with these. It looks kind of
[16:00] similar to something. I mean it's kind
[16:03] of kind of reminds me of something maybe
[16:04] I saw maybe a year. All right, so it
[16:07] it's time for the big reveal. All right,
[16:09] so what's been going on? That is the
[16:12] difference between
[16:14] 2900 ft pers at the muzzle
[16:18] and 2600 ft pers at the muzzle.
[16:22] All right, see this is where it gets
[16:24] good. They get granular. John is real
[16:26] technical. They're both very smart. Um,
[16:29] and a lot of their content moves slow
[16:31] because they are digging into all the
[16:32] details. So, it's it might not be for
[16:34] everyone. Um, but if you're in if you
[16:36] want to know what's going on out here,
[16:37] great great guys to follow.
[16:39] >> Right. So, for all you guys out there
[16:40] that shoot, I'm trying to give us a
[16:43] reasonable rate.
[16:45] >> And notice how it overlaps, right? It's
[16:47] he's getting a similar measurements on
[16:49] uh on what we're talking about.
[16:51] >> All right. So, for all you guys out
[16:53] there that shoot,
[16:54] >> I'd be curious what kind of conclusions
[16:56] they're coming to right about now.
[16:59] >> Conspiracy theories are entering a
[17:01] >> information is the oxygen of a
[17:04] democracy.
[17:04] >> There's so much evidence out there that
[17:06] even if less than 1% is true,
[17:10] That will be enough to collapse the
[17:12] current paradigm and change the whole
[17:15] planet.
