All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 10, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
57:17
REAL DEAL SPECIAL (8 October 2025): Katherine Horton & BIll Binney UNDER FIRE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on another real deal special conversation with Bill Benny and Catherine Horton under fire today, the 8th of October, 2025.
And we're going to go a little deeper into some issues we've talked about.
Bill has wanted me to talk about scientific reasoning, very appropriate.
I'm even doing a course right now on critical thinking and conspiracy theories.
And it just coincides that tonight, on the class, which will be shortly after our interview today, I'm covering exactly that subject.
But we've also been talking about this Charlie Kirk thing.
And a lot of people are baffled by what happened.
It's a perfect example of scientific reasoning for the following reason.
Let me illustrate.
There are four steps or stages to scientific reasoning.
Puzzlement.
Something doesn't fit in with your background knowledge.
Something's anomalous.
You want to figure it out.
Speculation.
Consider the complete range of alternative explanation, and it can be as far-reaching as you like.
Totally conjectural, if you like.
It matters not.
And it doesn't, there's no question where the idea came from, whether it was in a dream, an hallucination.
Somebody just made an offhand remark, matters not.
Because what's crucial is a third step of adaptation of hypotheses to evidence.
Which hypothesis, if it were true, would confer the higher probability upon the available relevant evidence with special concern to sorting out the authentic from the fabricated.
That was a trick with JFK.
They had fabricated so much evidence, they'd falsified the autopsy x-rays.
They'd substituted another brain.
They'd edited the whole movies.
The whole challenge was to figure out which evidence was authentic and which was not.
And I spent years, I brought together the best qualified experts to ever study the case, wound up publishing three books that shattered the cover-up.
Assassination Science 1998 had a whole lot of contributors.
Oh, I don't know, 15 contributors, but the most important work was by David W. Mantic, MDPHD, who established that the right lateral cranial x-ray had been altered by patching to see all fist-sized blowout at the back of the head.
He did it using optical densitometry, a technique he knew from physics because he had a PhD in physics from Wisconsin, MD from Michigan, and there was board Certified in radiation oncology, which of course is a treatment of cancer using x-ray therapies.
It was an expert in the interpretation of x-rays.
And in late 1992, he went into the archives for the first time.
He's now been there seven or eight.
But we had a conversation prior to his entry in which he told me he thought he'd discover evidence of a second shot to the head.
And remember, at this point, the government was claiming three and only three shots from above and behind, one hitting Jack in the back, five and a half inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column, one hitting Connolly in the back, the other hitting Jack in the back of the head, killing him.
So the government was claiming only three shots above and behind.
It was frankly absurd that they made that declaration the evening of the assassination because on radio and television that day, two shots were being widely reported.
A shot that entered the right temple that caused that blowout to the back of the head, attributed to Admiral George Berkeley, the president personal physician, and another shot, a small clean puncture wound to the throat.
The bullet actually passed through the windshield en route to its target.
So the whole afternoon on radio and television, the American people were hearing reports about two shots from the front that had hit Jack in the throat and hit him in the right temple.
In fact, when Malcolm Kildoff, the acting press secretary, had come out to announce JFK's death, he said it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head while pointing to his right temple.
Thus, the FBI and the Secret Service conclusion, three shots from above and behind, period, was absurd, given the announcement of his death by the acting press secretary and the reports in the mainstream.
You can find them online.
You can go back and watch them.
So that later in the evening, for example, on NBC, when these reports are now trickling in of three and only three shots, three and only three shots from behind, Frank McGee, who is nobody's fool, says, this is incongruous.
How can the man have been shot from in front because he spent all day talking about the show to the throat and the shot to the right temple from behind?
But that's the way they played it.
And when the Warren report was commissioned, you know, published a year later, three shots from above and behind.
And nobody was making a big stink about the absurdity of it all.
Well, that obviously was a very troubling situation.
We're going to go into it in, you know, depth in the course.
But the fact is, we're really looking at the likelihoods.
What's the probability?
For example, here's a simple case.
Okay, you got this anomaly with JFK shooting.
What's a probability of a single assassin if we have the evidence as it is?
I mean, now I'm throwing in of the shot to the throat and the shot to the right temple.
Obviously, very low, zero.
What's the probability of multiple assassins and therefore a conspiracy, given the evidence I've adduced?
Obviously very high.
In fact, one.
Those would have the values zero and one.
The government, therefore, had to manipulate the evidence so it wouldn't be so blatantly obvious.
But I think subconsciously, because so many had already been watching television and radio that day, they knew about the shots from front.
Subconsciously, when the Warren Commission report came out reaffirming three shots from above and behind, they knew something was wrong.
They just couldn't quite put their finger on it.
Then even when you have the best supported hypothesis, and believe me, we now know there was actually even a third shot to the head.
We even know there was a third shot to the head.
Now the evidence has settled down.
When it settled down and points in the same direction, we're entitled to accept the best supported hypothesis in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.
Tentative, meaning with the acquisition of additional evidence or alternative hypotheses, we may have to reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected and leave others in suspense.
Infallible in the sense that even the best supported scientific hypothesis may turn out to be false.
Classical Newtonian physics, 200 years, regarded as absolutely valid all locations, space and time.
Then Einstein came along and he explained it was actually a special case for regions of the universe relatively small and in speeds that are relatively modest in relation to the speed of light and it required frameworks, relativity.
We discovered even Newton, which had been taken as a classic example of really, it was thought then to be the infallibility of science.
Well, it was very humbling, very humbling.
We know better.
Now, when we go to the Charlie Kirk thing, we got all kinds of issues, but one issue we don't have, I think we don't have, is Candace explained Charlie had wandered off the Zionist reservation.
He thought he was in trouble.
Here's a short clip I want to share with Charlie.
Charlie was done with Israel bullying him, and I'm now going to present you proof of what I am saying.
This is an actual group chat, which happened two days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
There were nine people in total on this chat, including Charlie and Rob McCoy.
I'm going to protect the names of the other seven for now.
To be clear, I might actually release a name every day this week, but I want to show you this because suffice it to say, Rob McCoy was on this text thread, and I think it helps contextualize him as a person, in my view, that he would attack me for telling the truth about the pressure that he was facing.
Take a look.
So Charlie writes in this group chat, just lost another huge Jewish donor, $2 million a year because we won't cancel Tucker.
I'm thinking of inviting Candace.
Somebody writes, oh.
Charlie writes, Jewish donors play into all of the stereotypes.
I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause.
And somebody writes, donor writes, please do not invite Candace.
That might feel good short term, but it's not good long term, in my opinion.
Like all groups, you're going to get a wide variety of opinions.
That nasty free will thing that God bestowed on us makes life frustrating at times after the dust settles a bit, maybe.
So again, this is 48 hours before Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
He was very clear and he was very explicit.
And he did not back down in that Hamptons meeting, which they're all lying about, nor in this text thread.
I'm not going to reveal the names of the other seven.
Actually, you know what?
I disagree with myself four seconds ago.
Let's just throw in Josh Hammer for funsies.
He's on this chat.
Okay.
So, what are we to make of that?
Okay, now that I'm showing you this and showing to you that the conversations were real, I want you to reflect.
And it took me a lot of patience to allow the lies that were being woven and the misrepresentations of people that were pretending that I was just high on lying about Charlie and the pressure he was under, the attacks that not just me, Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly faced for trying this thing up and tell the truth about what Charlie was actually going through.
Why are you hearing it, though, from me and Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly?
Is that weird?
You got people that are hosting a show.
Have they, in like one honorable thing, come out and said, like, you know what?
F a couple of these donors who made his life a living hell in the last couple of weeks.
Why haven't they done that?
It's also a rabbi in that chat.
Like, why hasn't anybody made that move to at least say to vindicate what I have been saying about what he was going through?
That registers to me as very suspicious.
I'm going to frankly say that it's suspicious to me.
It makes me think that in the way, in the same way that Charlie was being pressured by money, that you might be now run by that same money, that those same donors might be running you.
Charlie was done with the issue of bullying him, and I'm now going to present you proof of what I am saying.
This is an actual group chat, which happened two days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
We got it.
Let me drop this and bring you guys back.
Let me say, Bill, I know you've had conversations with guys I admire and esteem, such as Larry Johnson, and that Larry suggested to you that what people don't understand is the caliber of the bullet.
That if it had been a 30-odd six, yeah, there would have been blood everywhere.
But it wasn't, right?
So that's Larry's explanation for the apparent anomalies: that we don't see blood in the tan, we don't see blood from various directions.
Candace has a video.
She said she watched the video footage from beyond, and there's no blood.
Now, Larry also said, What Larry also said, Jim, was that a 222 or 223 is probably the kind of bullet that used.
And those that's an exploding bullet.
And that's what that's when you saw his chest puff up.
He's suggesting that bullet exploded inside him.
And if so, the government should still have fragments of the bullet.
If that's true, they should know that and be able to say that.
Where is that?
Where is the bullet, period, or any part of it?
They aren't saying anything about that.
Well, would you believe the coroner has now come out claiming the bullet impacted with his spine?
And some are describing it as a miracle that he was a man of steel.
In fact, it turns out, you know, a 30-odd six will penetrate a half an inch of steel.
I mean, it's absurd theory, Bill.
We're being played one way or another, right?
The question is, that's right.
How far does it go?
Right?
How deep?
Yeah, is this guy really the shooter?
He didn't have a gun jumping off the roof.
And Larry was pointing out there were people in that video in the background walking along that all of a sudden they disappeared.
Yeah.
And you can see it in a way.
And his shadow went away.
You know, and so that's why that happened.
That's obviously a Dr. Device, a Dr. Devil.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
There's a whole lot of funny business going on here.
Good.
Good, good.
We're in agreement.
So far, so good.
Yeah, let me see.
I got to get away from Candace.
Oh, here it is.
I think that.
No, that's the wrong way to do it.
i'll find another way uh yeah why am i not getting rid of her
description capture um that's what i want to turn to and there there there are other places i can find it but i had it lined up here is another of the Yeah, I'm still getting Candace here.
Oh, here we go.
Here we go.
Well, that won't do it.
Let me see.
Conspiracy 101.
Apologies.
I've got these videos all over the place, but I've got to line them up to get us where we want to be.
Okay, um...
Yes.
Yes.
Here's the one I want to look at next.
This is pretty damn interesting.
This is still lost to cover with the whole Charlie Kirks.
Okay, this is an interview that was broadcast on ABC, George Stefanopoulos.
This is like the day after the event.
And this is an interview.
This guy's giving a critique of the interview.
And he doesn't realize the colossal blunder that ABC committed here.
All begin playing.
This is supposed to be a woman and her two nieces who are supposed to be about eight and ten years old.
I'll just start playing and we'll get into it and you'll see what's so stunning.
Saga and this one takes the cake.
I think you have to reshare it.
Jim, we can't see it at our end.
I'm not sure if your viewers can see it.
You have to reshare it.
Yeah.
Okay.
Let me see.
Can you see it now?
No.
I can see that you started a screen share, but it doesn't.
It just says double-click to enter full screen mode.
Okay.
And still not there, right?
If you maybe open it in the browser, maybe the standalone video player doesn't connect well with the share software, but all browsers are calibrated to work with Zoom.
So if you just click on it, yeah, now we can see it.
Now we can see it.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
Excellent.
Here is the aunt of these two children.
And her name is Tiffany Parker.
And the two nieces, right here, you have Mia Grant and Ellie Steele.
And the media constantly pushing the propaganda, putting children on the spotlight on the world stage when this is completely, obviously unnecessary.
And these two looked like something out of the shining.
Just again, a very bizarre world was presented on television programming.
Let's get right to it with this very strange interview conducted on ABC's Good Morning America.
We're joined now by Tiffany Barker and our nieces Elle Steele and Mia Grant, who were all in the audience yesterday afternoon.
Thank you for joining us this morning.
It was a difficult day for all of you right now.
And Tiffany, let me begin with you.
Just tell us what you remember about the scene yesterday.
It was horrific.
There was one shot that rang out, and everybody instantly looked around and then fell to the ground.
People saw Charlie instantly get shot in the neck.
And I'm going to point this out real quickly.
You see the audience at the whole scene in Utah.
And it's not the largest crowd in the world.
It's not a small crowd either.
At the same time, you should be able to identify the individuals that claim that they were there.
They're there.
They should be seen.
This video is going to be where the security and where are the people up there on the stage.
Very good, Bill.
This guy who's doing this critique doesn't realize what he's got here.
This is a rehearsal video.
This is the crisis actors that were in the crowd.
They only made up a third, maybe a quarter of the crowd, rehearsing in advance, Bill.
You spotted what this guy and George Stephanopoulos played this on ABC, Bill.
They played this on ABC.
Yeah.
Noted that when the girls' state they were 15 feet away from Charlie when this went down.
So if anybody could spot them in the front row, that's where they should be if they're only 15 feet away.
But nonetheless, I wanted to point that out, which is mentioned a bit later in this footage that's presented with the whole scene.
Let's continue on.
Shot in the neck, and everybody fell to the ground, and then people started running and got run over.
And I was with my family.
We had 16 of us there.
So five adults and like 11 children.
And we instantly got separated.
We're trying to find everybody.
And we had amazing Good Samaritans that grabbed kids.
One took my niece and took her to her apartment.
Very strange to bring someone's niece, her niece, to an apartment.
It kind of reminds me of that one event in the Northeast from years ago with the individual named Gene Rosen bringing children into his home after that event as well.
Just very strange.
Yeah, this thing with Gene Rosen, Bill.
This is Sandy Hook.
This guy actually turned out to be an employee of FEMA.
I had given anti-gun lectures in the past.
He had a home adjacent to the firehouse, and he claimed that a bus driver dropped off three, four, or five kids, and it depended on the telling at his home.
And he brought him into his house and gave him orange juice.
And they played with stuff animals.
They'll calm down.
One of them explained that her teacher was dead.
Now, think about it.
Gene Rosen wasn't the custodian or the parent of these children.
Bus drivers don't drop kids off at homes of parties who aren't their parent or their child.
I mean, it was absurd from the beginning, but none of the media ever questioned it.
This Gene Rosen went on to give many lectures.
He was a very poor actor.
He does have a screen actor's guild card, but he was very pathetic.
It was one of the major tells early on.
Strange, very bizarre.
Let's continue.
Somebody grabbed these two and my daughter and took them over to the tennis courts and stayed with them until I came.
It was a super awful tragedy, and there were really good people that stood up and supported each other.
And it was actually really powerful to see that.
Elle and me, I can't imagine how scared you must have been yesterday.
What can you tell us about what you all remember?
Elle, you go first.
So I remember hearing this thing.
I didn't, it was hard to know what it was, but then I saw it, and I saw blood everywhere, and it hit his artery.
And then just very bizarre.
This child talking about an artery being hit.
I mean, how old is this child?
And specific information being released, being stated here.
Just, again, it doesn't pass a smell test with all these type of events.
I just fell to the ground.
I covered my head with my hands.
And then I just started saying a prayer.
And then we all ran.
So instead of running first, she stood there and had a prayer.
Then, after the prayer was completed, then she started running.
Something seems very off of that.
Let's continue on.
And we ran into, like, we ran away to, and then we met at the tennis court, and I couldn't, and then we couldn't find anyone.
It was just me, Mia, and then my other cousin, Bella.
And then we, and then we were calling everyone.
We didn't know what to do.
And then we finally met up with them.
And it was just so scary.
Again, this well-spoken child, very young, but very articulate for her age.
And the names are mentioned, Bella, like I've talked about so many times with the Bell.
Let me back up here momentarily.
And again, looking at the name, it's pronounced L, but it's spelled like Ellie Steel.
You flip over the E's, you get your, obviously, your dual 33 in plain sight.
The L's are threes as well.
I mean, literally, this is full of coded 33s in plain sight.
And her name is pronounced L. Find that interesting when it comes to Hebrew.
Elle is God, just like Bella or Bel means Lord or Master.
And the tennis courts are constantly being mentioned during the interview itself.
And as I demonstrated in my Novak Djokovic video, specifically with this logo, when you turn it backwards, flip it around, it looks like sinner.
So just another aspect of the law of reversal in play.
Let's continue on here.
Moving forward to Mia Grant during this interview on, again, ABC News.
And let's take a listen to what is said here with, again, Mia Grant as she speaks after L or Ellie.
I'm sure Mia.
I remember that we were like 15 feet away.
You gotta stop right here.
15 feet away.
So specific with the numbers.
And again, like I showed earlier, if you're 15 feet away from what went down, where are the individuals that we see on the screen anywhere around here?
We have to really zoom in here to get a good look.
No, by the way, last week, Catherine and I looked at some of this, and she observed that three people being 15 feet away when 5 plus 1 equals 6 is another form of symbiology.
6, 6, 6.
I mean, it gets ridiculous.
You'll see here, by the way, they give an episode brief indication of the real crowd on the real occasion.
And you'll see how much more dense it was.
And they're going to some parties under the tent.
It'll come up and disappear.
It would only be up there briefly for a second and a half, but they would be in this vicinity around here.
It's hard to tell.
Obviously, there's different angles.
But again, to say, you know, 15 feet away, that number 15 for a young child, just really bizarre how specific and how the whole interview goes.
But we'll continue on here.
Once again, let me back up just here a tad and get back to the start of this again where she mentions the number 15.
I've covered the number 15 before.
On the runic wheel, it is the cross.
I'm sure, Mia.
I remember that we were like 15 feet away, and I thought like the shot was like a firecracker or something.
I just, it just didn't seem real.
Firecracker didn't seem real.
This is a constant over the years with these events.
After that, we went like behind where Charlie Kirk was, and then we were meeting up at the tennis courts and trying to find everyone and get everyone together.
And Charlie Kirk was such a good guy.
I'm going to miss him so much.
I've always watched all of his videos.
And I can't imagine.
America's going to miss Charlie Kirk.
Yeah, and definitely this is not scripted.
We can tell that by the reactions and the way they speak the wording.
Obviously, this is organic.
Nothing suspicious whatsoever.
What a funny guy, obviously.
He's suspicious.
How ridiculous can I get?
Catherine, I'm sure you got more observations you want to add based on your further reflections.
I want to get you both.
But, Bill, you agree this is totally fraudulent.
We got a fake rehearsal with crisis actors there.
Probably 500 of them.
Your thoughts?
I think my thoughts go back to saying this is obviously fake.
Somebody's faking something here.
Why are they faking it?
Yeah.
Who's behind this?
Who was behind the murder?
Not behind, you know, and who's covering it up?
This is all a cover-up of something.
I hold you in the highest esteem as I do, Larry.
There was no murder.
Nobody died.
It was totally fraudulent.
You tell Larry, you want, I want him to talk to me about this.
I do these false flags.
I've been doing it for 30 effing years, okay?
I do the best work with the best people, and I see things even you and Larry Johnson aren't going to see, okay?
Now, I'm just telling you.
I also see other things, too.
I'm seeing things here.
Somebody's covering this up, and they're corrupting the output that's going on television for everybody to view.
And why are they doing that?
They're doing it because there's somebody behind this who actually committed this murder for another reason.
No, Bill, they're doing it because the fakery was to make it look as though he was killed when he was not killed.
Okay, that's what I'm telling you.
Let me show you.
Here's the way to settle it.
I mean, Candace Owens at least knew Charlie Kirk.
I mean, she showed a group chat.
You know, do you think Candace Owens is in on it and she's just playing in the beginning?
No.
But I think now that she realizes it was to protect Charlie, she's in on protecting Charlie.
Here, here, look, there's a- Here's the thing, here's the thing.
If there was no murder, what does Charlie need protecting from?
Well, Chris, that's why I opened the original thing, but Charlie and the thing had wandered off the Zionist reservation.
They were going to kill him.
That was the point.
Okay, the interesting is about time.
When did you run off the reservation?
And you know, because if you run off the reservation two weeks ago, do they have time in two weeks to do it?
You know, this whole stage thing and then, you know, arrange it all like that.
He sold his house about a year ago for crying out loud.
This thing has been long in the works.
And he was confronted with a choice between silver or lead.
Bibi offered him 150 mil if he'd get on the reservation, stay on the reservation and be more enthusiastic about genocide and that he would, you know, support the expanded definition of anti-Semitic.
He wasn't going along with any of it.
He'd been to the wall.
He was talking about something's wrong here.
You go 10 feet, there's a guy with an AK-47, another 10-feet submachine gun.
The whole Israel is the IDF.
He said it's not anti-Semitic, and it's not on American to raise question about October 7th.
That had to drive Bibi up the wall.
He had to be extremely depressed, upset about it, angry.
So he was offering him silver, but the choice was lead.
Now, he had to figure out a way how to stay off.
And you'll get odds from Candace confirming he no longer supported Israel.
That was part of the little clip I showed.
He had told Tucker, Candace, and Clayton that he despised Netanyahu, despise him.
He was not going to come back.
So he was going to confront an assassination.
I don't have any doubt.
So they faked it so Charlie could escape.
Now, I have done a very thorough just yesterday, more thorough.
I'm going to share something with you now, but it's like an atrophied version of what's going to be published at eight o'clock tonight, 8 p.m. Central, nine-year time, with Christopher Key, a fellow named Christopher Key.
Okay.
I've done a couple of things with him.
And I did a thing about Charlie Kirk yesterday.
It'll be up today.
And unlike the one I'm going to show you now, where because of the platform he was using, I couldn't get the videos to play.
With Christopher, I was able to get the videos to play.
So you'll see everything more full in what's going to be up tonight.
But let me share with you right now this other more atrophied version about how it was done.
You may know the joke about smart pills.
This has been, you know, this has already been published several other places.
This, I think, is FTD.
Sorry to interrupt you.
We still can't see it again.
Oh, you can't see it again.
Yeah, it just shows a black screen and it says Jim Fetzer started sharing.
Double click full screen.
How about now?
Yep, now it's true.
Yes.
Okay, very good.
So it's been published a couple other places.
I said this, Charlie Kirk PSYOP is an IQ test.
Jim Fetzer, if you watch this video and still think he was shot and you need to take your smart pills, you may know the joke about the smart pills.
Patient goes in and said, doctor, doctor, I got a problem.
Doctor says, yeah, yeah, tell me what's your problem.
He says, well, I just feel really, really dumb.
And the doctor said, well, there's a simple cure for that.
Here, just take these pills three times a day and come back in a couple of weeks and we'll talk again.
So he came back in a couple of weeks and talked again.
He says, doctor, he said, I've been taking the pills.
And the doctor said, yeah.
And he says, you know, they taste just like mouse turds.
And the doctor says, see, you're getting smarter already.
Now, what we got here is how it was done.
This is one way to say it's not your hormones.
Watching anything without these ads.
What do you mean we're not selling out of our ammo anymore?
How are those idiots?
Hello, I'm John Coleman from Apocastasis, an Institute for the Humanities, an alternative college and high school here on New Milford, Connecticut, USA.
This broadcast, joined by Dr. James Fetzer, is a look at the news, news with the fence.
And of course, we're going to get into Charlie Kirk.
How was it done?
A very big story here in these United States.
And Dr. Fetzer is very busy with his shows lined up, so I won't take up too much time, except just one quick announcement, and that is to check out our open event series.
And there's all sorts of literary and historical readings we have.
And it's right there on the front page.
So without further ado, welcome, Dr. Fetzer, and the floor is yours, sir.
Thank you so much, John.
Yes, many are aware now that Candace Owens got the footage from a camera behind Charlie Kirk.
And what has disturbed her is not what she saw, but what she did not see.
There was no blood.
So the question becomes, what in the world is going on here?
Remember, we saw this blood seemingly gushing out of the side of his neck.
But notice already here, there's no blood on the background.
This is, he's in a little tent.
If you're hit with a 30-odd 6, your neck's going to blow up.
There's going to be blood all over the place.
Well, we got blood there on his shirt, but why don't we have blood all over the tent?
And get this footage from in front shows no blood on the shirt either.
So now we have footage from the back with no blood, footage that was widely broadcast with blood, footage that was not previously broadcast showing no blood.
The question becomes, how was it done?
And it extends to being carried off to the SUV.
In fact, there's somewhere you can see Charlie's sneakers.
They're virtually gleaming white.
They don't have a speck of blood.
There's no blood on the ground.
So what in the world happened?
My dear colleague Vivian Lee, I think, sorted it out.
How do they do this?
Hand signs triggered the remote activation of a squib.
This is a blood squib on Charlie's chest, though I think it may have been more of an air squib than a blood squib, because it doesn't appear there was blood there.
It did trigger the sound of a bullet, but I have experts in the area say that's not the sound of a 30-odd 6, that it might even be the sound of a CO2.
Plus, it's concurrent with the seeming hit.
That would be impossible for a shot fired from a couple hundred yards.
It would lag.
You'd see the effect, then you'd hear the sound.
So something's completely wrong.
This was a very amateurish production.
And Vivian Lee seems to have sorted out how it was done.
They had the squib activated on signal and then break and produce a fake wound.
She said with some blood, I'm not at all sure.
There were people taking cell phone footage in the immediate proximity, but no one outside the op was allowed to get that close, except it appears at least one exception.
You can't really control everyone in a crowd scene like that.
Then they sent their cell phone footage to the AI guy who added more blood and accidentally moved his ring to his little finger.
So we have this gross oddity.
In the beginning, Charlie's got his ring on his ring finger, but in the blood footage, it's moved to his little finger.
The same one thing between the time he was shot and his death, he moved the ring off of one finger onto another.
I mean, it's simply absurd.
They didn't notice the ring problem and sent the doctored footage to the news networks, who made sure the whole world saw it.
That way, anyone in the crowd would have seen the phase one squib event, which I say mostly air puffing up his chest, him seeming to fall backward, and the sound as to think it was real.
And the phase two doctored AI footage broadcast far and wide.
Definitely a Hollywood Mossade-style op.
I think more Hollywood than Mossad, because by my interpretation of what was going on, John, Charlie was worried that Bibi was going to have him taken out.
He'd wandered off of the design of his reservation.
He was raising questions about October 7th, about the genocide, about expanding the definition of anti-Semitism.
He was confiding in close friends like Candace and Tucker and Clayton that he despised Bibi Netanyahu.
Well, Bibi had offered him 150 mil if he would be more enthusiastic about genocide and more supportive of the new anti-Semitism definition.
But Charlie turned him down.
So it's really a choice, John, between silver and lead.
And I think, anticipating they were going to assassinate him, he figured out a way how to evade that fate by staging his death.
The commotion and arrest of the George Zinn character was part of the op.
It was done to direct attention away from the shooting and toward the fake suspect to give the AI guys time to doctor the footage so it could be sent out to the media far and wide.
Once it was ready to go, the news no longer focused on the fake suspect.
All attention moved to the fake shooting footage.
Now, here she gets very precise.
I think this is completely brilliant.
I believe she's got it 100% right.
The hand signs.
First, Charlie touched his nose to indicate he was ready to start.
Then the guy in white, Frank Turek, touched the bill of his head and then his top lip.
Then the guy in black put out his right arm and touched above the elbow with his left hand.
That was a signal to a guy in a brown shirt in the front row of the audience to activate the squib.
Right after the guy in the black made his arm hand sign, the guy in brown put out his left arm and touched it above the elbow with his right hand.
The remote was in the left sleeve of the guy in brown.
And when he touched his arm, he activated the squib.
They ducked down a little, focused on Charlie, and when he saw mission accomplished, he gave a smile of satisfaction and then took off.
Now, Jeff Renz is a fairly astute guy, but Jeff Renz had bought into the theory that the guy in brown actually shot Charlie.
But look, nobody shot Charlie.
You got no blood from behind, you got no blood in front.
What blood we have was added.
CGI.
The proof, in my judgment, is now conclusive.
Meanwhile, it turns out there was a trap door, believe it or not.
And I believe when Charlie fell back, they had him escape through the trap door and brought out a mannequin, which they carried to the SUV, and it had brand new sneakers right out of the box.
And I believe this was the same mannequin they put into the casket for Erica to do her sob scene, which was very bad acting.
But we're getting the hang of it.
Now, how ridiculous has it become to explain away these anomalies?
Inflation is destroying your savings, but gold and silver have protected wealth for thousands of years.
Smart Americans are buying idiot nation test.
Surgeon covers up an absurd FBI story by saying Charlie Kirk must have been a man of steel to stop the grizzly round with no exit.
John, this is a farce.
Here's the explanation.
Conspicuously not releasing the autopsy photos that would show there was no exit wound in the back of Charlie's neck, as the FBI contends.
Trump FBI has released the narrative of Kirk's pathology: a single 30-odd six round entering through Charlie's throat in the front and lodging in the body, making no exit wound.
Now, the mainstream is circulating the story of Charlie as a man of steel and a forensic miracle.
In the words of Turning Point Spokesman Andrew Coldhunter said he's quoting a surgeon who worked on Charlie quoted in the New York Post.
Now, listen, a 30-odd six bullet is a high-powered round that would blow through not only an elk, but the elk standing behind it.
It's a weapon of the kind you need to take down a grizzly bear.
By the way, this is a 30-30 round here.
A 30-odd six would be about, I'd say, 30% larger.
It's a huge round.
It's a huge round.
This is a big fella.
30-30 is big, but the 30-odd six is about this big.
Excellent, excellent, excellent, John.
The round at 200 yards easily penetrates five inches of steel.
0.5 point bluntly, as you can see in videos they attach where the idea of the impact that this round could be gleaned.
A 30-odd six would have made his head explode in all probability, generate a splatter for yards in every direction.
Preposterous to claim what we witnessed was a 30-odd six round.
In fact, it wasn't any round at all.
And here's more: why did Charlie not have an exit wound?
Turning point spokesman calls it another miracle.
John, realize miracles are violations of the laws of nature, which cannot be violated and cannot be changed.
We're talking about laws of physics, they can't be violated.
There are no miracles involving laws of physics.
That would have blinded Charlie Kirk.
So, what do we get?
The spokesperson shared they'd spoken to the surgeon.
This is a recount of the earlier story.
The surgeon, the bullet absolutely should have gone through, which is very, very normal for a high-powered high-velocity round.
Colbert shared.
He said the surgeon further added, I've seen wounds from this caliber many times, and they always just go through anything.
This would have taken a moose or two down in health, etc.
However, according to the fantasy, Charlie's body apparently stopped the bullet.
Colbert Daughty told the doctor there were many directly behind Kirk on the other side of the tech.
The doctor said that it was a miracle.
No one else was killed.
I mean, utter bullshit.
You know, really is an IQ test if you buy into this nonsense, John.
It's really preposterous.
Now, get this to further explain why there may be no bullet to trace because it was from an antique.
Yes, I got a rifle behind Charlie Kirk killing me from World War I.
And we got the photograph of the alleged shooter.
Let me stop.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I don't want to belabor it in the other.
There's much, much more about how it was CGI.
Bill, you got the wound moving around on his neck.
You got the lavalier of the bike moving up and down.
You got the letters on his chest disappearing and appearing and reappearing.
The blood never soaks into the shirt.
It's as though it's on a layer because it is on a layer.
That's all in the other in the video that'll be up tonight.
Now, you guys have great expertise in various areas.
I'll just tell you, I have my own, and that includes these false flag attacks, okay?
And if you suggest, uh, Larry, to look at the thing with Christopher Key tonight, and you'll get what is probably the best presentation I've made on it.
I don't want to push you now.
I think you make great points about somebody's trying to falsify.
I'm giving you the narrative and the context, what was going on here.
But if you would do me the kindness of watching, it's only one hour.
It's only one hour with Charlie, with Christopher Key.
It's going to be released at 8 p.m. Central, 9 p.m.
So it's going to be out here in half an hour.
Can you send me a link to it?
Yeah, I'll do it.
I'll do it.
It says I have it.
And I got to do this.
Can I add a little comment here?
I wish you would.
This reminds me of.
Yeah.
This reminds me of the USS Liberty.
Yeah.
And the LBJ cover-up.
You know what I mean?
When the Admiral and the Med, after they issued the May Day from the Liberty ship, because the Israelis were shooting them up, they were complaining back that this was an American ship.
Yeah.
And they kept getting orders to kill it.
You know, keep shooting at it.
Right.
Even though it was an American ship, and they knew that.
Okay.
Well, then the Admiral in the Mid launched some airplanes off the carrier to go give them air cover.
And LBJ ordered that Admiral to get the bastard.
I know the whole story.
And why?
Because he said we don't want to embarrass our.
Oh, no.
He wanted to sink the ship.
That was a justification for nuking Egypt.
He wanted to nuke Cairo.
Oh, yeah.
Well, they had, well, he couldn't have done it because we were watching all of that.
Okay.
Moshe Diane.
Boshi Diane was so good.
He didn't need the U.S. help for crying out loud, you know.
No, I know, but we couldn't have pulled strings because we had it all.
Okay.
Well, yeah, but who's going to, you know, overrule your findings, Bill?
I mean, you know, if he came out and said somebody else was doing it, he would have been, he would have been blood.
Lyndon was a primary.
He was a prime mover of the JFK assassination.
You know, the plotter.
Yeah, no, no, I'm with you on that one.
In LA on 1960.
Why wouldn't you be with him?
He was a really bad guy.
Yeah.
It's so fabulous in so many ways.
It's small enough.
You got one victim, one shot.
Everyone has opinions.
Everyone's holding it very strongly.
They're arguing like mad.
More evidence is coming out, falsifying all kinds of views right and left.
I just love it.
It's perfect.
And where is the autopsy?
With murders.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Nobody can even find birth certificates for their alleged children.
And there seemed to be more than one Erica Kirk.
The whole thing is a mess.
And then she was running a Romanian orphanage thing for Romanian angels that appears to have been child trafficking, Bill.
It gets worse and worse.
This is murky.
And it has passed.
Here's the thing: because I thought Tucker and Candace know Charlie Kirk.
They could confirm it.
I mean, are they lying to us?
And Charlie Kirk is alive as well.
And another question I had is: if Charlie Kirk was so worried about Mossad, basically, or being killed by the Israelis a year ago that he sold his house, would it not have been easier to just resign?
I mean, I don't understand what's the actual, so what is the alternative?
I can't read Charlie's mind.
I can only tell you what.
So the official narrative clearly is like absolute hokem, right?
I mean, the very first time we talked about this, you always only ever see that frontal video.
And we saw from the beginning it was manipulated.
You know, the side, I got a videos from distant.
There's no blood.
It's only in the CGI video.
And Vivian Leigh figured it out.
How they used the distraction of the guy who claimed to be the shooter while they did the CGI and they did a real bad job.
The CGI, the blood starts to come down, then it goes back up.
They did so bad.
And the letters popping around, Bill, wait till you see it because I've got it in the what's going to be released here in half an hour.
So, I mean, here's the thing.
The one problem I have with all of this footage compared to Butler, Butler was more or less live, but here we have no chain of custody for any of the videos.
No, I know, I know, I know.
You can always raise that in any case, Chaney.
And it was vital actually in JFK because they tried to claim that because the Secret Service had possession of the Zip film, they couldn't have been altered, except the Secret Service was in on it.
I mean, right now, you know.
Exactly.
But here's one question I have is: so, what is the alternative theory?
Because there are several options.
Number one, Charlie Kirk, I mean, I'm just listing them all.
Charlie Kirk is genuinely dead.
And, you know, Erica Kirk could have been a honeypot.
Number two, Charlie Kirk faked his death.
They were not really married.
It was all just a fake marriage with fake children.
Did they not have family friends?
You know, did Candace never meet them with their children and saw their children's faces?
You know, I have so many questions about it.
And then if he really is so scared for his life that he needs to go into witness protection, it's so much easier to resign.
And then the donors can run with somebody else and run, you know, Turning Point USA.
It's like nothing fits about this.
All I'm saying to you is I work on how it did happen.
You know, we can, I love speculating about the motivation and why he did it the way he did it.
I'm only going to tell you how they did do it.
And I'm telling you, I'm not wrong about this.
And I've got multiple, you know, people working with me.
All my stuff is collaborative.
I don't just go out on the limb.
If I can't prove it, I'm not going to claim it.
But I want you to just do me the kindness, looking at the more extended version and let us reconvene next week.
And I'd love to get your considered opinion.
And please tell Larry for me, as a guy who I admire him tremendously, to please just watch this thing I did with Christopher Key, okay?
I'll send it to Larry.
Yeah, perfect, perfect.
Well, I love you guys.
I think you're wonderful.
You're two of my heroes in the world.
So when we have a difference, it must be important.
I'll just say that.
Okay.
I think, you know, there's something there's something going on here.
And I think it's involving the people in power who are doing things to cover stuff up.
And this is why I want to draw you into it, Bill.
See, I know you were reluctant, but there was scientific reason and all this is perfect, perfect.
So I'll get it to you earliest.
I'll be tied up for two hours.
It's going to appear in the meanwhile, but I'll get it to you at my earliest.
You'll have it by tomorrow morning, I would think.
You guys are wonderful.
I can't thank you enough.
This is Jim Fetzer concluding another fantastic conversation with Bill Benny and Catherine Horton, in this case about Charlie Kirk, to be continued next week as we have our ongoing conversations with Catherine Horton and Bill Benny under fire.
This has been a real deal.
Special report.
▲
Export Selection