Up Next
Candace Owens Exposes Victor Marx's Suspicious Timeline and Erika Kirk's Will Update Appointment Days Before Assassination
57:26
Joe Kent Reveals He Was Stopped from Investigating Potential Foreign Involvement in Charlie Kirk Assassination
12:18
Candace Owens Exposes Turning Point USA's Psychological Manipulation After Charlie Kirk Assassination and Questions Official Narrative
1:04:08
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Zach Costello Investigates Body Armor Theory in Charlie Kirk Assassination and Finds Critical Flaws
Zach Costello examines the body armor theory proposed by Paramount Tactical and US Overwatch regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination. Multiple YouTube channels suggested Charlie was wearing a concealed ballistic plate that deflected the bullet into his neck, explaining the lack of exit wound. However, Costello presents compelling photographic evidence from moments before the shooting, statements from Erika Kirk denying body armor, and the silence from Turning Point USA officials that he believes debunks this theory entirely. The investigation raises critical questions about the official explanation and the forensic evidence that remains unexplained.
The Body Armor Theory Emerges
Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, several investigative YouTube channels proposed a theory that could explain one of the most puzzling aspects of the case: the lack of an exit wound despite the type of rifle used. Paramount Tactical initially suggested that Charlie was wearing concealed body armor during the shooting. The channel presented footage from moments before the incident showing what appeared to be a square outline under Charlie's shirt, consistent with a thin ballistic plate.
The theory proposed that Charlie was likely wearing a thin, metallic body armor made from titanium alloy, which is designed to be concealed even under a t-shirt. This type of armor, while effective at stopping projectiles, has different deflection properties than composite armor. The argument suggested that a bullet striking this thin plate could ricochet at an angle, potentially explaining the neck wound observed and the absence of an exit wound through Charlie's back.
Ballistic Testing Supports the Theory
US Overwatch, another YouTube channel, conducted practical ballistic testing to validate the body armor theory. Using the same type of rifle believed to have been used in the assassination and a similar ballistic plate, they recreated the shot. The results appeared promising for the theory. The bullet impacted the very top edge of the armor and was deflected upward without fully penetrating the plate. The trajectory traveled up and caused damage to the area behind the mannequin's neck region, potentially explaining how Charlie could have sustained a neck wound without a corresponding exit wound visible on the backdrop behind him.
The testing demonstrated that it was physically possible for a bullet to strike body armor and redirect into the neck area, creating the type of wound pattern observed. This seemed to provide a scientifically sound explanation for what had been one of the most confusing aspects of the forensic evidence.
Erika Kirk's Statement Contradicts the Theory
The first major problem with the body armor theory came from Erika Kirk herself. In a statement to the New York Times following Charlie's funeral service, she explicitly stated that Charlie was not wearing body armor or a bulletproof vest at the time of the shooting. While some might argue that Turning Point USA security could have required him to wear protection without her knowledge since she wasn't present at the Utah event, this direct statement from his wife carries significant weight.
Additionally, no one from the Turning Point USA team has come forward to confirm that Charlie was wearing body armor. This silence is telling. If Charlie had indeed been wearing protective equipment, this would provide an immediate and simple explanation for the ballistic evidence and would effectively end speculation about alternative theories. The fact that no official from the organization has made this confirmation suggests the body armor theory may not hold up to scrutiny.
Photographic Evidence Debunks the Armor Theory
The most compelling evidence against the body armor theory comes from careful analysis of video footage taken immediately before the shooting. The only camera angle that appears to show a body armor outline is the one provided by Paramount Tactical. However, when a microphone is clipped onto a shirt, it can create an almost square impression on the fabric that could be mistaken for armor plating.
More importantly, extensive video footage exists of Charlie throwing out hats to the crowd right before he sat down to speak. He did not return to his tent between throwing the hats and beginning his talk. Analysis of this footage reveals clear views of Charlie's natural chest outline. From multiple angles, his pecs are visible, his nipples can be seen through the shirt, and even the outline of the cross necklace he was wearing is apparent. The side angle shots show his natural body shape without any indication of a hard plate underneath.
Slowed-down footage provides even clearer evidence. The natural contours of Charlie's chest are visible, with both nipples clearly outlined through the fabric. This is simply his body and shirt, with no indication of any rigid armor plating between the fabric and his skin. If he had been wearing even the thinnest titanium alloy plate, it would create a different visual profile than what the footage shows.
The Bones of Steel Explanation
Andrew Kolvet, spokesperson for Turning Point USA and executive producer of the Charlie Kirk show, has offered an alternative explanation. According to Kolvet, who is a close personal friend of both Charlie and Erika Kirk, the surgeon who examined Charlie stated that he had "bones of steel." This explanation suggests that it was simply a medical miracle that the bullet did not pass through Charlie's body.
The miracle argument, while appealing to those who knew Charlie as a devout Christian, raises significant questions from an investigative standpoint. While Charlie's faith was well-documented and many believe he is in heaven, the concept of miraculous bone density as a forensic explanation is difficult to accept without substantial medical evidence. The reference to incorruptible bodies of saints, while part of Catholic tradition, doesn't provide a scientific framework for understanding the ballistic evidence in this case.
The Critical Unanswered Question
With the body armor theory effectively debunked by photographic evidence and statements from Erika Kirk, a critical question remains: what explains the lack of an exit wound? The US Overwatch testing demonstrated that when the same type of rifle fires at an unprotected target at this distance, it creates a massive exit wound, even blowing through the board positioned behind the dummy.
If Charlie was shot directly in the neck from the front as some angles suggest, and he was not wearing body armor, the absence of a corresponding exit wound defies the expected ballistic behavior. The "bones of steel" explanation, while offered by sources close to the investigation, lacks the forensic credibility needed to close this aspect of the case. Without body armor to deflect or slow the projectile, standard ballistics would predict a significant exit wound.
Citizen Journalism and the Search for Truth
This investigation represents a new model of citizen journalism, where individuals with technical expertise, access to similar equipment, and the ability to conduct practical testing are contributing to the understanding of a major event. The YouTube channels that proposed and tested the body armor theory, while ultimately finding that it doesn't hold up to all the evidence, demonstrated the value of independent analysis and practical experimentation.
The FBI and authorities are reportedly paying attention to these independent investigations and the evidence being compiled. The power of crowdsourced investigation lies in the collective resources, diverse expertise, and access to footage and information that individual citizens can bring to bear. Multiple camera angles, expert knowledge in ballistics, and the willingness to conduct hands-on testing have all contributed to a more complete picture of what happened.
As tips and analysis continue to come in from concerned citizens, the investigation evolves. Each piece of evidence, whether it supports or contradicts a particular theory, moves the search for truth forward. The collaboration between technical experts, witnesses, and analysts represents a potentially transformative approach to how investigations of public incidents could work in the future.
Video Transcript
[00:00] All right. So, first of all, guys, I
[00:01] want to thank everyone for sending me
[00:03] tips and comments. Very helpful and a
[00:05] lot of insight as we sift through the
[00:07] evidence and footage in pursuit of the
[00:09] truth about the Charlie Kirk
[00:10] assassination. I put out a video late
[00:13] last night and shared a clip from Range
[00:15] Day Bro YouTube channel which included
[00:17] convincing footage of Charlie being shot
[00:20] from the right rear which explains the
[00:22] potential exit wound that we saw from
[00:24] his neck. Many of the comments both on
[00:27] the video and via email contained a lot
[00:29] of questions though regarding Charlie
[00:31] wearing body armor and I want to address
[00:33] that here. I'm going to show you what I
[00:36] found and you all have provided me which
[00:38] again thank you for and after you've
[00:41] seen this I think you're going to agree
[00:43] that this blows open the Charlie Kirk
[00:45] case. The YouTube channel Paramount
[00:48] Tactical initially proposed that Charlie
[00:50] was wearing body armor and here is a
[00:52] clip from that argument. Here
[00:56] we are right here. He's he's talking.
[00:57] This is just moments before any any
[00:59] shots are fired. And one of the things
[01:00] that you couldn't tell or I couldn't
[01:02] tell from the initial video is the fact
[01:04] that he is clearly wearing body armor. I
[01:07] want you to look at this outline.
[01:09] Without a doubt, he is wearing body
[01:10] armor. Now, there's lots of different
[01:12] types of body armor out there. There's
[01:13] uh some of the more advanced stuff is
[01:15] like this composite body armor. This
[01:16] stuff is very effective. Um it's super
[01:19] lightweight. And what's great about this
[01:20] type of body armor is that when rounds
[01:22] hit it even at high angles, and I've
[01:24] tested this stuff, but even when rounds
[01:27] hit this type of body armor at acute
[01:29] angles, this type of body armor does a
[01:31] really good job of absorbing the
[01:33] projectile, stopping obviously
[01:35] penetration, but it also uh prevents
[01:38] fragmentation and deflection and
[01:40] ricochets as well. So, this is a really
[01:42] good body armor. The problem with this
[01:43] body armor, as you guys can see, even
[01:44] some of the there's some newer stuff out
[01:46] there that's slightly thinner, uh,
[01:48] that's more advanced, but it's still
[01:49] pretty thick. When you're trying to wear
[01:51] body armor and keep the lowest profile
[01:53] and not even be able to see that body
[01:54] armor, especially under something like a
[01:56] t-shirt, uh, most people are going to go
[01:58] with some sort of metallic body armor.
[01:59] This is a titanium based um, alloy. It
[02:03] is fairly lightweight, but most
[02:05] importantly, what you guys can see is
[02:06] that it's extremely thin. Um, this type
[02:09] of body armor is very easy to conceal
[02:12] even under something like a t-shirt. And
[02:14] I think this is very, very similar to
[02:15] what Charlie Kirk is actually probably
[02:17] wearing right now. This is certainly a
[02:18] credible argument. And as that image of
[02:20] Charlie's shirt does look similar to the
[02:22] outline of the thin body armor plate
[02:25] that was shown to you in the video, it
[02:28] also fits the bullet ballistics. YouTube
[02:31] channel US Overwatch recreated the shot
[02:33] with the same rifle and ballistic plate.
[02:36] And here were those results.
[02:45] All right, guys. So, uh had a perfect
[02:49] hit on that one and it actually had the
[02:53] effects that uh we had kind of hoped to
[02:56] get. uh just to explain some things. So
[02:59] you can see it did impact the very top
[03:02] edge of this armor and the
[03:07] hard backing back here. It was actually
[03:09] deflected from the front uh up through
[03:14] and off the back without fully going
[03:17] through the armor, which is exactly the
[03:20] uh shot we were hoping to duplicate. So
[03:22] feel very fortunately very fortunate
[03:25] that we were able to do that. Now you
[03:26] can see the trajectory did travel up and
[03:30] we actually have some damage uh right
[03:32] here just kind of back behind the uh
[03:36] skull which could potentially explain
[03:40] the redirection of the round and there
[03:43] not being an exit wound uh or a a bullet
[03:49] hole that you could see on the backdrop
[03:52] uh behind uh Charlie uh once he was uh
[03:56] assassinated. So potentially there is an
[04:00] explanation. I know we'll know more as
[04:02] reports get released.
[04:04] >> So as you can see, this is a solid
[04:05] argument. It explains the lack of exit
[04:07] wound on the back. The bullet hit the
[04:09] chest plate and ricocheted into his
[04:11] neck, creating the wound that we all
[04:13] saw. Here is my problem with it and why
[04:16] I think this does not hold up. First of
[04:19] all, Erica Kirk told the New York Times
[04:21] after the funeral service that Charlie
[04:24] was not wearing body armor or a
[04:26] bulletproof vest. Now, you can argue
[04:29] maybe the Turning Point USA security at
[04:32] the scene or at Utah made him put one
[04:34] on. Erica wasn't there. But the only
[04:37] angle that looks like he is wearing body
[04:39] armor is the one provided by Paramount
[04:42] Tactical in that first clip that you
[04:44] saw. And when you clip a microphone onto
[04:46] your shirt, it creates almost a square
[04:49] impression on that shirt. Also, and I
[04:51] think this is the one that actually
[04:53] debunks it. There are just too many
[04:54] pictures of Charlie's nipples. I slowed
[04:57] down this video of Charlie throwing out
[04:59] hats right before he started talking. He
[05:02] did not go back into his tent after
[05:03] doing this. He threw the hats and then
[05:05] sat down to talk. Look at his chest area
[05:07] here. You can clearly see his natural
[05:10] chest outline. This is Charlie's body.
[05:13] And then you see him throwing here,
[05:14] there's no chest plate. This is just his
[05:17] body and his shirt. You see from the
[05:19] side angle here, his pecs outline. You
[05:21] can see his nipples right here
[05:23] immediately before he gets shot. And
[05:25] this view, I think, just completely
[05:27] debunks the body armor narrative that
[05:29] you can actually see both of his nipples
[05:31] here and the outline of the cross
[05:33] necklace that he was wearing. Very
[05:36] clearly, he is not wearing body armor
[05:38] here. Finally, no one from the Turning
[05:40] Point USA team has come out and said
[05:43] Charlie was wearing body armor. This
[05:45] would be a very easy explanation and
[05:47] debunk any other theory or argument if
[05:49] true. Andrew Kovette, the spokesperson
[05:51] for Turning Point USA, executive
[05:53] producer of the Charlie Kirk show, very
[05:56] close personal friends with Charlie Kirk
[05:57] and Erica, has insisted that Charlie had
[06:00] bones of steel. The surgeon said that
[06:03] Charlie had bones of steel when it was a
[06:04] miracle that the bullet did not pass
[06:06] through. The miracle argument is just
[06:09] not one that I'm willing to accept at
[06:11] this point in time. Charlie was a great
[06:13] Christian. I believe he's in heaven and
[06:15] there are saints with incorruptible
[06:16] bodies. Let the Catholic Church take a
[06:19] look at him if that's the case. Again,
[06:21] the miracle argument is just something
[06:23] that we cannot accept right now. My
[06:25] question is this. If there's no body
[06:28] armor, which clearly there's not, what
[06:30] is the explanation then for no exit
[06:32] wound with this type of rifle at this
[06:34] distance? In the US Overwatch video that
[06:37] I just shared with you that you just saw
[06:38] where he recreated the shot, he tests
[06:41] the shot to the chest without body armor
[06:44] and it blows a massive hole behind the
[06:47] mannequin and even through the board
[06:49] behind the dummy. If Charlie was shot
[06:53] directly in the neck from the front,
[06:55] what is the explanation besides the
[06:57] argument that his neck bones were were
[07:00] bones of steel? Keep the tips coming,
[07:03] guys. zack@zaccastello.com.
[07:06] This citizen journalism is working. The
[07:08] FBI and the authorities are paying
[07:10] attention to what we are finding and
[07:11] saying. We will find the truth and
[07:14] perhaps this will change the way that
[07:16] these investigations work going forward.
[07:18] We have numbers, resources, footage. We
[07:21] have the power to do it and find the
[07:23] truth. I'm Zach Costello.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.