Owen Shroyer Live - Charlie Kirk Assassination Debate

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 7, 2025 - Owen Shroyer Live

01:26:01

Charlie Kirk Assassination Debate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Gentlemen, it is October 7th, 2025, and we are hosting a debate tonight between Jason Goodman and Chris Martinson.
		And we'll see, I'm sure they agree on some things, and maybe they have some differences on their perspective and their independent research of the Charlie Kirk assassination.
		And I think a lot of people have questions.
		A lot of people are looking for answers to these questions in what really is one of the biggest political stories of our lives.
		And for me, a younger guy, the biggest political assassination that I have been alive for.
		So it's a very important story, and we just want the truth.
		Doesn't help that we can't trust our government, but there's nothing we can do about that tonight.
		So introducing the two guests that will be hosting and mostly be talking tonight.
		I hope the less I talk, probably the better.
		But I will be moderating tonight.
		Jason Goodman, you can see on the left side of your screen, and Chris Martinson on the right.
		What we will be doing tonight is I'm going to allow both of them a five-minute introductory statement on what they believe happened.
		And maybe in that, we can kind of see where they have their differences and where they have their similarities.
		Both will get five minutes, and then I will kind of direct the conversation from there.
		But you will mostly be hearing from them and their perspective from their independent research tonight.
		I thank both of them for being here, and I hope you will find this moderated debate helpful, informative, and at least appreciate the independent work that's being done out there in the media today.
		So we'll start with Jason for no other reason than he joined the room first.
		So we'll go to Jason first.
		Jason, your five-minute opening statement.
		Thank you, Owen.
		Chris, thanks for joining me tonight for this debate.
		I think a lot of people have seen that I have been saying for past several days, if not weeks, that I believe that Charlie Kirk was shot from behind by a low muzzle velocity projectile, very likely a 50 caliber PCP rifle or gun.
		I believe the muzzle velocity was very close to 500 feet per second.
		And I've arrived at that calculation by observing primarily two different videos that were initially presented to me by Zeb Boykin.
		I think a lot of people know Zeb.
		He's the U.S. Marine that was doing some ballistics calculations.
		He had this video.
		And actually, Owen, it was your show where I first saw this video.
		Zeb played this video, and you had the same reaction that I did.
		I won't go to the gruesome part of it, but your reaction, Owen, was that, wow, that's the best quality video that we've seen from the incident so far.
		And I agree.
		So I got the video from Zeb.
		And for people who haven't seen me before, before I got involved in independent journalism and started Crowdsource the Truth, I had a long career in motion picture production and digital imaging.
		And I've worked on major motion pictures like Amazing Spider-Man, X-Men, Metallica Through the Never.
		I was a visual effects cinematographer and I've developed a number of camera systems and optical systems.
		So the approach that I've taken has really been to forensically examine the digital evidence.
		And a lot of it has been pretty decimated cell phone videos.
		So as I said, when I saw this video on your show, Owen, I had been in communication with Zeb.
		He provided the video to me.
		And the thing that I noticed about it right away is that it's not a video that came directly from someone's cell phone.
		There are certain indicators in the metadata, let's say, that inform me of that.
		Primarily, the video is of a frame rate that is very non-standard.
		Most people probably know that in normal mode, your phone is operating at 30 frames per second.
		It takes 30 images per second.
		It displays 30 images per second, and that creates the illusion of motion.
		This video that Zeb provided was 20 frames per second, and this is very, very unusual.
		The other thing is, it's encoded in an MPEG profile high 10.
		Now, this is an HDR, a high dynamic range profile, and the iPhone is capable of shooting in high dynamic range, but it uses the normal 10 profile.
		So, this was very clearly a video that had been transcoded.
		Someone took the video from the phone, did processing to it to reduce it to 20 frames and to re-encode it as this new file.
		I did a few shows with Zeb, and this was a topic that we dug into quite a bit.
		And after maybe the first or second show that we did, another version of the video came about.
		This version here is essentially the same video, but this video is 30 frames per second.
		Eagle-eyed viewers will notice it plays slightly smoother as the camera pans around and the motion and all that.
		So, again, going back to my digital production experience, there's only a few ways that you can get a 20 frame per second video from a 30 frame per second video, and really it would involve dropping 10 frames per second that would create kind of a staccato and unnatural motion, and I just don't think that that was what happened.
		So, it occurred to me that this video likely originated from a file that was evenly divisible by 20 and 30.
		So, that could have been a 60 frame per second video, it could have been a 120 frame per second video, or it could have been a 240 frame per second video, and each of these are frame rates that your iPhone can shoot at.
		I believe every iPhone since the 10 or 11 can shoot 240 frames per second HD.
		And then what I discovered was these three frames, these are what I allege is a projectile headed towards the back of Charlie's head, and two of them came from the 20 frame per second video.
		The third came from the 30 frame per second video.
		So let me just explain that.
		If we start with a 240 frame original, to get a 20 frame per second video, we're going to drop 11 out of every 12 frames.
		We take one frame out of every 12, and we're going to have 20 frames per second instead of 240.
		To get our 30 frame per second video, we're doing the same thing, but we're taking one out of every 8 frames.
	So, what we end up with is two different videos that are essentially the same, but they're comprised of different frames.
	So, when I extracted these relevant frames from those videos, I found this very straight line.
	Now, some people have said it's not perfectly straight, and there's a few reasons for that that we can go into later, but just to give you the high points right now, the thing that made me determine the speed of this and the frame rate was that I've added this, let's call it an arbitrary scale, because we can't really easily measure in real units this single two-dimensional image of the scene.
	We do know that Charlie Kirk was 6'4, and he's seated here, so we're looking at about 3 feet of Charlie from seat to the top of his head.
	And I asked ChatGPT, if a projectile were fired at 500 feet per second and photographed by a camera operating at 240 frames per second, how far would that projectile travel in one 240th of a second?
	And the answer was 2.08 feet.
	So, given that this is about three feet on Charlie, it looks to me like we've got about two feet and change in between each position of the projectiles here.
	So these are essentially sequential frames there.
	And I just want to switch now to Adobe After Effects to show you guys the next incident in this sequence is this acute disruption of Charlie's shirt.
	And so we can see here is the projectile.
	This is the 20 frame per second video.
	This is the last position in this video before there's another position recorded in the 30 frame video approximately here.
	And then the next incident in this video is, I allege, the projectile has entered just below his skull.
	The soft part, you know, maybe it's deflected off the bottom of his skull because from that trajectory to here is about 19 degrees downward.
	And I think the bullet deflects off the bottom of his skull where it ejects out the front of his throat and catches the shirt collar.
	And because it's such a low muzzle velocity relative to a supersonic rifle round, it's lost so much of its kinetic energy penetrating his neck and all the organs inside his body.
	By the time it gets out the exit wound in the front, it's caught in the shirt collar like a net.
	It stretches out the shirt collar.
	Other cameras not operating at this high frame rate and short exposure time see it as a puffed out, almost explosion looking action.
	That's a lot of activity on the shirt happening very quickly.
	But that acute disruption basically catches the bullet like a net and then it retracts back.
	And I think the bullet, people may disagree, but I think the bullet now is down in the shirt and there's some more activity where it's rolling around in the front of the shirt.
	And I think the projectile goes down the front of his shirt where it probably fell onto the ground and has now been paved over.
	All right.
	Chris, your opening statement.
	If you want to respond to that, you can use your time as you see fit or you can make your claim as to why you believe what happened.
	All right.
	Well, I can dispute all of that, but we'll get into that in just a minute.
	It's very easily disputed as well.
	It begins here.
	This is the alleged shooter position.
	We're supposed to believe that Charlie Kirk was shot with a 30-06.
	We haven't seen any of the extra rounds.
	Apparently there were two more rounds in a magazine in this Mauser Model 98 rifle.
	You can see the little, we got, what do we got here?
	It's some evidence tags.
	This is where the shooter was laying down.
	And of course, we have video of somebody laying in that spot.
	And then, of course, after the shot, we have this FBI video of somebody running across the roof.
	And I'm going to call that the suspect, not necessarily Tyler Robinson.
	And the idea is that he shot from here and Charlie was sitting right under the apex of that tent and caught around.
	Now, two things.
	That's about a 10 degree downslope and it's about 10 degrees off axis with perfectly on axis would be straight out of my chin towards you.
	A little bit off to the side.
	Here's the thing.
	There's not a chance in the world that somebody was shooting standard 30 ought six rounds hitting this part of the soft part of the neck and that that didn't just entirely evaporate that neck and have it clean through and through.
	There's just almost like zero chance of that.
	This is what a 10 degree downslope would have looked like.
	The bullet would have been coming like this.
	It actually misses everything.
	So here's the off-axis part.
	It was a little off to the side.
	It's coming down at a 10 degree slope.
	It would have missed every bone here, just going through soft tissue just from the downslope angle.
	But we also know that just within a tenth of a second after the shot, this is important as part of the rebuttal to what Goodman said here, is that we see that he goes into what's called a decorticate posturing.
	His right hand curls and comes in.
	That speaks to a very violent midbrain or higher injury to the brain.
	This is an important thing because if you were shot in the spine, for instance, and you were transected, your spinal cord was like ruined anywhere north of the C7 vertebrae where the C8 nerve comes out that innervates the arms.
	If it had been transected anywhere, C1, two, three, four, five, brainstem, if his cord had been cut, his hand is limp.
	It's not doing this because the circuitry has been violated.
	So this gives us a clue, but it speaks to a very, very violent event.
	And here again is that path of a 10 degree downslope.
	It misses everything, even the top rib, rib number one up there.
	Maybe if it was a little lower and I misplaced it on the neck theoretically, it could have maybe encountered the first or second rib, but it would have been glancing off of them and just blowing through them.
	So this is what it looks like coming in from a 10 degree off-axis angle.
	This is the head.
	The neck obviously is smaller than the head, right?
	Just is.
	And so with the neck wound starting appearing here as an entrance wound, it would have missed everything.
	That would be the spinal column right there.
	3006 blows out the back of the neck every single time, unless these are very special rounds.
	And of course, he could have had low velocity round, lower velocity rounds.
	We know it was a supersonic round because we have all the audio.
	We hear the crack boom.
	So we know there was a supersonic round fired.
	Was it the one that hit him?
	You know, now we can have some questions.
	Or maybe he was using frangible rounds, which are designed to disintegrate on impact.
	Maybe, maybe.
	But they haven't shown us any of that stuff.
	And the most common thing, he would have gone to a store and bought 3006 hunting rounds.
	So it's a 150-grain soft point, maybe 180 grain, maybe 200, one of those models.
	So I can skip past this real quick, but this is where the bullet wound would have entered right here in the neck, would have blown through the jugular.
	We saw that.
	We saw the wound appear.
	He tenses up.
	He starts to tip over, and then we saw that gushing.
	And the explanation for that is when a high velocity rifle round hits you, you have this extraordinary cavitation that happens.
	It's this overpressure event because the bullet is now dumping 2,000 to 3,000 foot pounds of pressure of energy into a body and the body's liquid and liquids don't compress.
	So what happens?
	All that energy gets rapidly converted into an expansion that we see on gel films and things like that, gel shots.
	But the explanation is it ruined his jugular, killed him pretty much instantly.
	And then that blood would have all been pushed up into his head and then it gushes out a little bit later, a couple beats later.
	All right.
	So, I mean, we can see exactly what happens when people shoot, you know, gels and things like that.
	And standard 30 out 6 rounds go 19 to 30 inches, depending on the round we're talking about.
	But this was the video that kind of solved it for me.
	I saw one from the side that suggested this, but I wasn't comfortable going with it until I saw this one here.
	And so this is the frame of this one.
	It's a pretty high quality video.
	The person taking this was all the way back in what we call the prow up there, above the audience, and pretty decent high-quality video.
	That's the camera right there.
	It was on that prow.
	We can see it right here circled.
	So they were pretty far away.
	But what we see here, this is one frame, 1 30th of a second, because this one was shot at 30 FPS, 1 30th of a second before the shot happened.
	And then here's the first frame after the shot.
	And you can notice something.
	Well, first, the microphone's still there.
	So no exploding mics.
	That's done.
	If the mic was exploding, explosions happen at 20 to 30,000 feet per second.
	It would not still be in frame.
	Okay.
	This thing here, some people have interpreted as a puff of smoke.
	It's not.
	It's just a very rapidly moving piece of t-shirt.
	It's just obviously blurry because it's moving too fast.
	But you can notice here right away, if you look at his neckline, it's like twice as big.
	Like everything's just huge.
	Now, why is that?
	That's called a high-speed cavitation event.
	This is what it looks like.
	Like here's somebody shooting a 300 blackout, and when the bullet hits, it goes expands out.
	And that happens in just one one-thousandth of a second.
	It's very fast.
	So to capture it on video is kind of unusual because that's capturing at 30 frames a second, and you need it to capture this thing that's happening at a thousandth of a second.
	Not every video camera is going to capture it.
	And so this one frame did capture it, and we can see it very clearly.
	Here's his neck outline.
	And I've taken this, everything lines up exactly perfectly, frame for frame, pixel for pixel.
	And I've taken this same outline of his neck here before the shot, dropped it into the frame after the shot.
	And you can clearly see this overexpansion of tissue here, overexpansion.
	So this brings me back to the idea that it's not possible to cause this kind of a violent high-speed cavitation event with a low velocity round.
	It's just not going to happen, particularly not something traveling at 500 feet per second.
	It's just way too slow.
	So here it is before, after, and you can just see it, just track it.
	Here he is before.
	After you can start to notice things, everything sort of puffs up like this, right?
	And the explanation for why his necklace flew violently around his head and off is that his whole chest expanded.
	And that expansion is very violent and it's hydrostatic expansion, meaning it's like a hydraulic piston.
	It's hydrostatic expansion.
	It's got a lot of force.
	It grabs his t-shirt and just throws it, right?
	The t-shirt's going to be traveling in a direction because it's been given a strong force.
	We see a huge amount of force go up this way to Charlie's left to our right.
	And that's very indicative of the idea that the bullet entered on the left, caused more of that overexpansion we just talked about, that cavitation on the left side than the right side.
	And because of that, you see more of this motion of the t-shirt to the left.
	There's actually a couple of frames where you can see clearly that there's this thing pushing up, and that's the pendant from his cross necklace that got snapped off the chain snap.
	But the pendant was still flying up and creates this little rectangle in his t-shirt a couple of frames later up in this area.
	So with that high-speed cavitation event, I can rule out a lot of things.
	It wasn't a palm pistol.
	It wasn't a little 22.
	It wasn't any of these things that people were talking about for a while.
	And we also know for a fact that bullets of this magnitude, a 30-odd 6, do not change direction instantly upon entering something really soft like a neck.
	I've done a lot of handgun training.
	I've done a lot of defensive pistol shooting.
	I reload my own ammo.
	I'm pretty big into this 40 years.
	I've been a gun guy.
	And I will tell you this.
	The first thing they tell you when you're doing defensive handgun training is when you shoot somebody with a pistol, what do they do next?
	And the answer is whatever they were doing before you shot them.
	Because pistols just don't have a lot of stopping power.
	Unless you actually hit somebody right in the nerve center, you shoot somebody anywhere in the torso.
	They're going to keep doing what they were doing beforehand for a while because bullets from pistols just not a huge amount of stopping power, particularly, you know, if they're traveling at a very low rate of speed.
	So I think it's okay.
	So we have a better idea where each of you are coming from as far as your different perspective.
	So it sounds though that it sounds we all agree, though, that we are highly doubtful, if not outright in disbelief, that a 30-odd six hit Charlie in the neck, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay, so we all agree that that is highly unlikely or even impossible.
	Okay, so now we get into now we get into where the shot came from.
	I pitch it to Jason for your response.
	Well, yeah, I'd first like to point out how Martinson is totally incorrect because he's just not aware of what he's looking at.
	He speaks with confidence, but that confidence is misplaced because there is no way that this cavitation event could happen and relax in 1 30th of a second.
	And that's the entire duration of a second.
	Yeah, but his neck is subject to inertia because it's human tissue.
	That wouldn't relax from where it was in a thousandth of a second.
	What we're looking at here is a camera.
	Let me just finish, please.
	What we're looking at right here is a camera from UVU Review.
	That is the school newspaper media center, whatever it is.
	We see this camera in the view of other cameras looking up there.
	Now, this camera is very different than the cameras that are being operated by people in the audience.
	Those are iPhones, Android phones.
	This camera is a professional ENG camera, electronic news gathering.
	And we see the long lens.
	The lens has a mechanical iris on it that controls the light coming in.
	It's likely got neutral density filters built in and all those kind of things.
	And this type of camera operates not only at 30 frames per second, as Chris has rightly pointed out, but it also has an exposure time of 1 60th of a second.
	So what I allege was happening in this video recorded at 240 frames per second, its ability to stop the bullet in motion is not a result of the frame rate.
	It's a result of the exposure time.
	The iPhone can have an exposure time as short as 1 50,000th of a second.
	And people remember in Butler PA, Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Doug Mills captured a supersonic bullet with a 1 8 thousandth of a second.
	That was a long streak, but this is very probably a much faster shutter speed, twice as fast, three times as fast.
	It's a bright, sunny day, and the iPhone doesn't have a neutral density filter or a mechanical iris to stop down and control exposure.
	So it's going to decrease the shutter speed dramatically, 1 15 thousandth of a second, 1 20 thousandth of a second.
	The ENG camera operated by the UVU review does not do that.
	So we have this event that is recorded in 1 30th of a second, but this is all motion blur.
	The other thing is even if his neck expanded like that, his body is one pressure vessel.
	The t-shirt is a separate thing.
	It doesn't really make sense that the t-shirt would expand like this if his neck was expanding.
	This is just rapid activity of the fabric that looks like a puff because it's happening so quickly it can't be accurately imaged.
	Martinson also failed to explain how the same cavitation event is not observed from the side here.
	His neck looks totally undisturbed.
	And this is, as I said, a much higher frame rate.
	We can even look at the 30 frame per second version here.
	There's more activity seen on the shirt here.
	There's the puff that we're seeing blurring in the other frame.
	It's the shirt being agitated in all kinds of ways.
	There's the acute agitation on the 30-frame video.
	And if we could get this original 240-frame video, we'd see a lot more detail in what's going on in the shirt.
	But the ENG camera, it just gives us a blur.
	And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that there wasn't a supersonic round fired.
	I allege that there was.
	That was a distraction round, first of all, to draw everyone's attention away from the location of the real shooter behind Charlie.
	And that would have been done.
	I'm not implicating this company.
	I'm not saying that this product was used.
	I'm just pointing out that this exists.
	This is a product from a company called Digital Trigger.
	And what this is, is an AR-style trigger that you replace on your gun.
	And it's got a programmable circuit board inside here.
	And now I'm not a ballistics expert or a gun owner, so I don't know all the details of this, but I've watched videos from the guy who invented it, and he's saying that you can program it in one mode if you're a sniper.
	I presume that's for some sort of soft touch trigger.
	You can program it so one pull of the trigger fires two bullets.
	You can program it so one pull of the trigger fires continuously.
	And the developer of this product warns users to follow the laws in their states.
	Now, I don't need to know about guns to tell you that if you have a digital device that is triggering something, my work in Hollywood, when you see the matrix and the bullet time effects and stuff like that, that's a sequence of digital triggers that are very precisely timed to set off one camera after the next in microsecond precision.
	So my allegation is that whoever was firing the pre-charged pneumatic gun with the low muzzle velocity round that first penetrated the brain, causing that decorticate posture and then deflected down off the skull out the front of his throat,
	that trigger would have been timed to simultaneously fire the supersonic round on whatever rooftop to distract the crowd, to stymie all the crack thump calculations that the sophisticated parties doing this conspiracy to murder Charlie Kirk would be aware that people like Dr. Martinson and John Cullen and various other experts, Mike Adams, they know that people can do these crack thump calculations.
	So they're going to build in some mechanism to fool that process.
	I allege.
	Chris, your response.
	So a couple of things here very quickly.
	First, so I took a still from your video, Jason, and obviously these things aren't in a line, which is a problem, right?
	Because bullets travel in straight lines.
	They don't accidentally deflect.
	You see these two things here, whatever these are.
	And then this one's just not in the same channel.
	So we have a problem.
	But the other problem is that unless you're, and by the way, you look at the exposure of this, you can clearly see this was not shot at 50,000 frames per second.
	If it was shot at a standard 260, which would be kind of top end for what people are most likely going to be using in manual mode even or automatic mode on an iPhone, this is what those bullets would have looked like.
	They would have been two foot long smears because it's very simple math.
	Let's imagine we're shooting at 250, a shutter speed of 1,250th of a second.
	And you say this thing's traveling 500 feet per second.
	During that shutter time, they would have traveled two feet.
	So the fact that you have little tiny dots resolved, it is just not possible to catch bullets from an orthogonal direction on an iPhone.
	It's just not a thing.
	It just doesn't happen.
	They would be smears at best, but that would be under with a very special.
	I mean, that guy who shot that alleged photo, and I have dispute that, what happened in Butler, that New York Times photographer, and Michael Jan disputes it even better than I possibly can.
	And I'd like to see the raw files, just like Michael has been calling for, but that was at 1 8,000th of a second.
	And that was with a Sony A2, one of the premier camera platforms, like the best that happens to exist.
	That somebody's out here with a cell phone, you say we're seeing resolved bullet dots, it's just not a thing.
	They would be smears.
	They would have to be smears.
	Well, let me once again explain to the doctor what he does not understand.
	There are two different parameters.
	There is the frame rate, which I'm saying is 240 frames per second.
	It's a standard frame rate in an iPhone, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, any of those, 16, 17, they can all be able to get away from that.
	I said shutter speed very clearly.
	Okay.
	So the exposure time, the shutter speed, as it were, is a separate setting.
	And that can be independently adjusted from the frame rate.
	I did this video to educate Gary Melton because he also doesn't understand this concept.
	You can see that I'm adjusting the shutter speed here on the right.
	And this is an iPhone 15 or 16.
	You see how dark it is?
	You see how dark it's getting?
	I'm inside a room, Chris.
	Let me finish, please.
	This is inside a room at night, not outside on a sunny day.
	And I'm not saying it was 1 50,000th of a second.
	I said it was about 1 15th, 1 15,000th or 1 20th, 1 20,000th of a second.
	Somewhere between 1 10,000th and 1 20,000th of a second.
	Go look at the metadata in your iPhone on a very sunny day.
	You'll see it's not uncommon for it to automatically go to those settings.
	If you're in a room at night, as I am in this video, and you set it down to 150,000th of a second, yes, it will be very dark.
	But if you're outside on a sunny day with your camera set to 240 frames per second and your shutter set to 1 10,000th, 120,000th, you're getting little tiny dots, 2.08 feet in between them, equidistant.
	The reason why they aren't in a perfectly straight line is because, as I said at the top of the explanation, these come from two separate videos.
	One encoded at 20 frames per second, that's these two, and one encoded at an entirely different and much lower data rate.
	That's this one at 30 frames per second.
	So by reducing the data rate, we're changing how pixels are interpreted.
	It changes the size, it changes the resolution.
	And also, this is a handheld iPhone.
	So even a slight angular adjustment of the person holding it would have a pretty large impact on such small items in terms of their vertical positioning in the frame, given how far away the photographer was from these items.
	And I am not able to easily stabilize two different videos.
	So again, if we had the original 240 frame per second video that I allege these were derived from, that sequence could be stabilized.
	It would all be the same resolution, the same bit rate, and that would line up.
	You might notice that even though they're not in a perfectly straight line, it's pretty darn close.
	So if we're going to refute my thesis here, we have to explain how in that sequence, we get three items that are basically directly behind his head, where they're about to damage the red nucleus of his brain, causing that decor to kit posture.
	Because of course, the next incident that happens, whether it's a 30th of a second, whatever, is this, where he's been shot and his shirt is being disrupted.
	Whoops.
	Yeah, but if he was shot in his head with a large, slow-moving round, his head would have been thrown forward.
	It didn't go forward even slightly.
	So we have a physics problem there.
	I see things like what you're describing with the little dots.
	I see them all the time.
	They're insects.
	They're things people kicked off from the upper thing.
	It's pieces of, it's leafs.
	It's something floating around.
	Those kinds of things happen all the time.
	This happened in Butler.
	I saw it all the time where people said, oh, here's this drone and often it was a bird.
	But we do have a second video.
	This is the one that I wasn't comfortable going with because it wasn't quite as clear.
	But you can clearly see in this that the first thing that moves in this video is right here.
	It's the back of his shirt, right?
	You watch this shirt right here.
	The first thing you're going to see is a puff to the back.
	Boom, right there.
	Do you see that?
	Right here?
	That's coming out.
	And then the next thing you see, of course, is his chain flying around his ear.
	That's this right here.
	It's not an earpiece, but you can clearly, you see this?
	You see this neck out pouching right here?
	That was suggested to me.
	Also, his neck is now also much larger.
	It's got that cavitation of it.
	Wouldn't mind if I would interject something here.
	Do so I, I think, would we all agree that that is the first movement?
	Then i've got a much higher resolution version of that same video that we can evaluate.
	Before we get into that though Jason, do you agree that that's the first movement, because I I, from my research, that seems to be the first movement.
	Do you agree or disagree?
	Agree okay, so we do all agree.
	I just wanted, I just wanted to see if we all did agree with that.
	Uh so Chris, I interrupted, go ahead.
	No no, it's fine.
	It's fine because this is This is the first detectable movement from the side right here.
	It's pushing out into the back, right?
	Which again would be consistent with an entrance rune from up here with this violent dumping of energy in here.
	You can also see down here, very large, like his neck is now much larger than it was right here.
	And that's part of that overpressure event.
	And of course, it goes down very, very quickly again.
	And so, you know, this is this is, again, I have, I have two, two angles here to sort of confirm that.
	But again, you can see here from these little things up, this is the first movement I see right here, this outpouching to the back.
	That's not consistent with being shot in the back of the head.
	If you were shot in the back of the head, A, the autopsy will show that.
	B, I think Candace, having seen, she said the 4K video from behind, saw nothing.
	You would probably see something if he was shot there.
	But most importantly, physics is physics.
	Force equals mass times acceleration.
	His head would have tipped forward if he was shot from behind.
	And that's automatic.
	It's just, there's nothing.
	Jason, before we go to your higher definition video of that angle and get your breakdown, Chris, so let me kind of hone into that point.
	So Candace sees the HD video.
	She says there's no exit wound.
	Later, I believe somebody from Turning Point USA, it might have been Andrew Colbett or somebody makes the official statement saying that, yes, there was no exit wound.
	And then they claim the doctor told them that it went in and then, you know, did a magic bullet thing, right?
	Hit a vertebrae, whatever, came back, stuck in the skin, whatever that is.
	So how does that play into what you're saying here?
	Because obviously these two things can't be true.
	Right.
	So the only explanation I have at this point, the first thing I came up with within a few days was since it's impossible to get shot here and have it at a 1010 angle, not just blow right through the neck.
	And I don't care what 30 ought six round you're using.
	If we're going to go with the 30 ought six story, and I'm open to other calibers and other stories, right?
	But we have no data to go with at this point.
	No autopsy report, no recovered bullet, no fragments, nothing.
	He had to have been shot from a higher angle and from a higher off-axis angle so that that bullet would have a chance to maybe hit the spine and dump and release its energy.
	Now, if it did that, I could easily imagine a bullet coming at a steeper angle hits something in his body, like the spine, and then fragments and just explodes, right?
	And big chunk of it, they said they recovered the bullet, but I would have, there's no possible way for a bullet to have stayed intact, hit here, traveled up, ruined his C2, come back all the way down through the C6, and then landed under the skin by his T1 vertebrae.
	There's just, that's a magic bullet.
	I don't do magic bullets, right?
	So we have to come up with some other physics for that.
	And we have to account for this midbrain damage at the same time, which makes it all kind of confusing.
	An autopsy report is going to clear up a lot because we need to know where was the first thing damaged in his body.
	If you have that and we agree that this is the entrance wound, just draw a line and we're going to have a line that goes straight back to the shooter.
	I may come back to you on that, but I wanted to let Jason respond with his video.
	Yeah.
	Well, first of all, Candace Owen did not say she saw a 4K video.
	She said she saw a video over a Zoom call, which is basically going to be as good or bad as a YouTube video, even if it originated at 4K.
	And we have no idea what may or may not have been done to that video before she saw it.
	And I'm not denying anything that Candace said.
	I think she was being honest with us, but it's an inconclusive evaluation of a video that nobody else has seen.
	So as far as the physics goes, I understand that Dr. Martinson is telling us that this guy was shot with a supersonic round, generating tremendous kinetic energy, and yet he doesn't seem to be moving backward.
	What I'm saying is something with barely enough kinetic energy to penetrate his neck hit him.
	And just like when you throw a baseball at a bed sheet, it creates a little unfortunately this app doesn't give me precise control of frame by frame.
	So look at how his hair goes up.
	You can see in this better version, it's as if something has just struck him right here.
	We're talking about the midbrain.
	Well, again, I'm not a neurosurgeon.
	I'm just saying I feel like his brain is back here.
	And if something hits him right back here, it's more likely to damage his brain than this thing bouncing off of his chest and exploding and doing all these crazy things you're talking about.
	So I think this is a pressure event at the back of the shirt.
	And his hair flips up.
	And then in the next frame of this, the hair has relaxed as if there's been some really acute action right there at the back of his head.
	The thing is now through his neck, disrupting the shirt.
	And he's over.
	He's dead by here.
	His arms are up.
	His brain has been damaged.
	That's what I think is happening.
	But if you see that, that, that, right there, that first thing where something is throwing that shirt back violently.
	That's probably four or five inches of shirt coming back.
	And that's a shirt that's adhered to his body.
	So that's physics.
	We have to account for that physics.
	And my explanation for that is the severe overpressure event is that's his cavitation happening.
	Why aren't we seeing the shirt back?
	There should be something coming out of that if there's a cavitation.
	No, it's creating pressure.
	No, it's contained in his body.
	It's totally contained within his body.
	And why would the shirt have an isolated pressure event?
	This is air pressure outside his body underneath the shirt.
	Otherwise, that's one interpretation.
	If it shouldn't be puffing like this, the whole shirt would come up from the shoulders.
	Mind me for a second here so we can kind of maybe have the audience better understand this.
	Jason, what you're saying is the image that you have on the screen indicates what exactly.
	I think what we're seeing is a low velocity, low muzzle velocity round hits him right about here, and it creates enough air pressure on the event.
	That's what I'm getting at.
	What causes the shirt puffing up?
	I guess that was the better question.
	Air pressure.
	See, his hair is pushed out of the way right here.
	His shirt is pushed out of the way, and the shot is hitting right about here.
	Pow.
	You know, if you threw a baseball at a bed sheet, it would puff up on the bed a little bit.
	Air pressure.
	So Chris, let's get back to you, and you can follow up on that.
	But I want to go back to what you were saying before.
	Air pressure or whatever else you think caused this.
	Either way, obviously there was nothing, there's no exit wound.
	I think that we've all concluded there's no exit wound, right?
	So we're trying to figure out what caused that on the back.
	Sorry, no, no, no.
	My conclusion is the exit wound is what we see at the front of his neck.
	There's no wound in the back.
	Let me be specific.
	There's no exit wound in the back.
	Okay.
	So, Chris, I go back to you.
	How do you explain the shirt anomaly?
	That's very simple.
	It's contained in this and hundreds of videos just like this.
	You see that?
	So imagine, so that's happening in just a bare fraction of a second, right?
	And so when you see that first over cavitation event like this, it's not going to be an even round.
	It's not going to expand like a, I don't know, a basketball or something.
	What's going to happen is the human body has bones, it has structure, it's going to have softer path.
	So this overpressure event is going to be pushing wherever it can to, you know, wherever it has to, path of least resistance.
	His neck would expect, I would expect to expand more than, say, under his rib cage, for instance, which has structure down there.
	But what you're seeing would be basically this.
	So the t-shirt is thrown by that event.
	His whole body and neck expand and then contract very, very rapidly.
	And it's a very, very rapid event because water does not like being expanded.
	It hates it.
	That's why hydraulic pistons do what they do, right?
	So that's my explanation: he has a severe overcavitation event.
	You need a lot of force to move a t-shirt that far in a single frame.
	So don't forget, we're looking at that first moment.
	That's a 30th of a second later.
	So it takes a lot to move anything, even a few grams that far, four or five inches in a 30th of a second.
	The only thing that has that much force is this event we're talking about here.
	By the way, a subsonic round creates almost no wind.
	I mean, you'd have to shoot one really close to a candle to even blow it out.
	They don't create a lot of wind.
	It's just, that's not a feature of bullets.
	In fact, they are designed specifically to have a very high ballistic coefficient, which means they're just slipping through the air.
	As you might imagine, it's an important feature of a bullet.
	So I can't go with the, this is air pressure.
	It's just, it's way too much air pressure.
	And bullets, by definition, don't have that kind of air pressure associated with them.
	So just to just to get to understand this clearly, what you're saying is the impact to the front of his neck, which is obviously what we can all see, the one identifiable thing that we have is the hole right here.
	You're saying the impact from that caused such a cavity that that's what forced the shirt back like this.
	But it happened so fast that it's nearly impossible to capture that on camera, is what you're saying.
	It's very rapid.
	It's going to be blurry because the motion is going to be faster than the frame rate and the shutter speed are going to be able to really resolve.
	It's a very fast event.
	That's why all this thing, when I showed you that video of that cavitation event, these are people using ultra-high frame rate cameras.
	That one probably was shot at somewhere between 50 and 100,000 frames per second.
	I'd have to look that one up, but that's pretty typical.
	People are shooting these 100, 125, even higher shutter speed cameras to be able to capture that because it's a very rapid event.
	So, Jason, we'll get your response.
	What I find strange is it does what, and like I said, I mean, like you're saying, it's so hard to capture this.
	It's happening so fast.
	Maybe the one camera that Turning Point USA had right there, which is a 4K camera, I mean, that might be able to give you some answers if you could see that, which nobody has, at least publicly.
	I don't know of anybody that's talked about that shot, no pun intended, that camera angle.
	But it does, the one thing that seems strange to me is it does appear like both from the front and the back, there's like this isolated, it's like isolated here, and then it's like isolated here.
	And it does, I mean, it just looks to the naked eye like that would be an object that does it because the point is so obvious.
	Like you can see the expansion point.
	That's just an observation from me.
	It could be explained with anything you guys are discussing here.
	That is strange, though, that those two points on the back and the front seem to be isolated like it would be an object that did that.
	But Jason, go ahead.
	Yeah, and just to clarify, I'm not talking about wind.
	I don't presume that a bullet is creating wind.
	I'm saying when you shoot a bullet into the small of his neck, it creates an impact like you're punching something.
	And the air that is resting there is now being pushed out of the way as this pocket hits the shirt.
	Now, let me go to, I've just loaded this same frame into Adobe After Effects where I've brightened it up here.
	And you can see this is this fat guy behind him.
	We don't see any cavitation event in the neck.
	His neck looks totally normal.
	And it's also important to remember that this is, we're back on somebody's cell phone here.
	This is a vertical video you can see on the left.
	That's the original video that I started with, and a 500% blow-up on the right.
	I recreated this video at 4K and various playback speeds.
	So this is a cell phone again.
	And remember, it's a bright, sunny day.
	The automatic settings are going to make the exposure time very much shorter than 1 60th of a second, where we see that blurring collar on the UVU Review ENG News camera.
	That thing has an exposure time of 1 60th of a second, which is a very, very long time.
	This shirt event, now we're only seeing one frame of it because this camera is operating at 30 frames per second, but this is the stopping of action equivalent to a 10,000 frame per second camera.
	We don't have the additional frames that are showing us what happened.
	You know, all these other temporal events are missed, but this is a very isolated puffing of the shirt.
	The other thing is that ballistic gel video that we saw that was somewhere between 10 and 100,000 frames per second, the ballistic gel was not wearing a shirt.
	And if it were, we would see a differential between the time the ballistic gel expands and then the shirt would react to that.
	Events are affected by inertia no matter how fast they happen.
	And when you look at them at 10,000 or 100 frames per second, you would see that time differential.
	The neck cavitation and the response from the shirt would have some sort of a delay.
	And we're not seeing that here.
	There's no cavitation of his neck.
	This is all activity happening to the shirt.
	The cavitation wouldn't be isolated.
	This looks like a mushroom cap on the shirt.
	And we see it in great detail here because, again, the action is frozen due to the short exposure time, even though it's only 30 frames per second.
	Imagine this, guys.
	Let's say we don't have a video camera.
	We have a still camera.
	But I go out, I want to take photographs of hummingbirds.
	I say, click.
	Oh, boy, the wings are very blurry because my exposure time is 1 60th of a second.
	I'm still only going to take one picture, but I'm going to set the shutter speed to 1 20,000th of a second.
	Click.
	Now the wings are frozen in midair.
	That's what we're seeing.
	And it's important to understand when we look at this different digital evidence.
	We need to understand the technology of the cameras and the devices that are showing us this evidence.
	We're not looking at real images.
	There are artifacts induced into these images by the apparatus used to make the image.
	Well, Chris, if you want to respond to that, you can.
	I think we've kind of reached a dead end here.
	Well, I have just one more because I thought it was a great observation about like how do we resolve the physics of from the side?
	We see his shirt doing this.
	This was a little bit potato cam.
	This was somebody from a cell phone up front, but this is the frame right before, and this is the first frame after the shot has happened.
	And you can just track all of these elements.
	And I've just shown you everything is moving from his lower upright up to his left, right?
	Everything.
	Everything in this photo is going that way.
	And you can see this first outpouching of the t-shirt up here.
	So it's very consistent with a big, like a big pressure event on this side that pulls everything that way.
	Because Jason's right, physics is physics, right?
	So, and for this microphone to have moved from here to there, or all the F to have gone up here, or all of these E's, you can see this whole curve.
	It's all been pulled that way, you know, up to Charlie's left pretty hard.
	So that's physics.
	We have to account for that.
	And that's not going to happen because he's flinching.
	This is way too fast, right?
	This is like a 30th of a second later.
	And so we have to account for that.
	It's just physics.
	Well, let me account for that, if I may.
	Because we also have to keep in mind that we're looking at two-dimensional representations of a three-dimensional world.
	So whether that is out, up, diagonal, it's very difficult to tell.
	Not only is that from a cell phone, it's obviously been transcoded and screen captured.
	So the pixels that we're looking at right there are not very accurate.
	I think in scientific measurement, we would call that garbage in, garbage out.
	But even given all that, it's consistent with something pulling the shirt in some direction, pulling it as if it's shot through the back of his neck, pulling that acute point forward.
	Everything appears to be moving up or out or in that direction, consistent with the low velocity round penetrating the back of his neck, losing so much of its kinetic energy that when it catches the shirt collar, that's all it can barely do is pull the shirt and then relax and come back.
	Nah, that's a lot of fancy words, Jason.
	Nonsense.
	We can clearly track this.
	We have two frames to work with.
	There's been no basic movement in Charlie or the camera in that amount of time.
	That whole 2D, 3D thing.
	I didn't say Charlie move.
	I said the shirt moved.
	We can clearly see these things moving violently, rather suddenly up into the left.
	This isn't being pulled out.
	This isn't a magic bullet being caught in a t-shirt, you know, and anything like that.
	This is very easy to resolve.
	And it just seems like common sense.
	Well, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
	You're saying a thing shot at him from the front pulled the t-shirt up.
	I'm saying a thing shot at him from the back pulled it out.
	And you're looking at a two-dimensional image, which from this angle, you can't tell if out is up or what angle the camera was at.
	And you're telling me it's nonsense.
	Did I get that part correct?
	Yeah, just because if you shoot it all, you realize that, you know, bullets tend to just go straight through things, right?
	They will hardly even hardly even tug at something, like a shirt, if they're moving at any sort of velocity at all.
	Second of all, the cavitation event, if you understand that physics of that explosion that happens when all those foot pounds of energy get dumped in, so we have that.
	But as well, we also have, and this is hearsay, of course, right?
	But Owen, you brought it up.
	I've heard the same thing.
	I've heard it from a number of people who've had insights and they've talked with people at TPUSA.
	There was an autopsy.
	They found a bullet fragment around the T1.
	They also said that there were other fragments in there as far as I've heard so far and that the rest of his C2 to C6 is pretty well damaged.
	So if that's the case, if we have a bullet and bullet fragments in the body, then what do we do with that information?
	So you don't do magic bullets, but you do do imaginary autopsies.
	Do I have that right?
	Did you understand the word hearsay that I used?
	Yeah.
	So until it's actually released, that's just a story.
	I don't think there's been an autopsy that's been released to the public.
	And even if there was, I think controlling the coroner is the number one rule in being the governor of Arkansas.
	So I wouldn't believe an autopsy as much as I would believe the images that we see if we know how to interpret them correctly.
	I would like to maybe pivot to a different direction, but I guess I would ask this in closing.
	Have either of you maybe looked into the necklace, the chain causing either one of these anomalies or what role might the chain have and why did it break apart like that?
	Do we have any ideas with that?
	Yeah, well, to me, if you have a chain that's hanging, right?
	And I think he had probably, I'm going to guess around a 24-inch necklace and it's hanging.
	And so it's just loosely hanging like this.
	But, you know, he had probably a decent pendant, right?
	I've got a cross on my neck, and that's probably about five grams of weight.
	So in a violent thing like this, we're talking about that cavitation.
	It's hard to imagine, but the force O and it's just, it's a very sudden acceleration.
	And in that acceleration, it's entirely possible that A, the clasp broke right away because it couldn't manage that force of just the expansion.
	And then B, that's what that expansion is what threw the necklace up and around his head.
	So something had to throw it around his head, right?
	Because it clearly whips around and goes off in that direction.
	That's quite a bit of force.
	It's most consistent with a physical event, which had something had to transfer that energy to that necklace to break it, either break the chain, break the clasp, and then throw that necklace all the way around, which again speaks to a fairly violent, very high force kind of thing, which is most consistent with the cavitation event.
	And so you think that could have happened in the front and that would have broke the chain and then it goes back around his head.
	Yep.
	You just expand like this.
	Like imagine if I had a chain and it's sitting on a balloon and you suddenly violently expanded that balloon to twice its size, like just really violently.
	If that chain snapped, it's going to go wherever that expanding balloon sort of like the force took it.
	But we can clearly see it whip up and around the back of his head in two frames.
	It's very clear.
	I think you can sort of see it in the third one, but it's a pretty violent event.
	Jason?
	Have we explained how the cavitation is visible on the shirt, but not on the neck from this angle with the high shutter speed?
	I don't know.
	Can we see that?
	What's the next frame look like after that?
	Here's the previous.
	Here's the sequence.
	Let me go all the way back to the beginning.
	Yeah.
	Let's take this one at a time.
	We zoom right in on the timeline so we can go one frame at a time here.
	Here's his neck before he's shot.
	Yep.
	I'm as zoomed in on the timeline as I can be.
	There's the next frame.
	His neck looks pretty normal.
	And the shirt is reacting in his hair.
	Look at his hair.
	It's as if something has hit him right here.
	And it's like, you know, you throw a rock at a pond and you get this reaction.
	Then the shirt snaps back because, as you said, this is a high-speed event.
	And I don't see this cavitation that you're talking about.
	It would seem the cavitation would have to have happened already for the shirt to be puffed out.
	So I just can't agree with what you're saying there.
	I think it's a good idea.
	Well, no, this is my main point, though.
	These cavitation events are like a one-one-thousandth of a second.
	So it's entirely possible for that to get missed, which is why we have that one.
	The skin cannot react that quickly.
	It would take time for the skin to come back.
	About that.
	You're wrong.
	This is.
	Why is the shirt not come back?
	Because the shirt's not a fluid.
	If shirts out there in air and it's just subject to physics and it's not.
	It would have reacted this quickly.
	If we saw the shirt in this position, his neck should be on it.
	No, the neck could have already expanded and collapsed back and floating there in air.
	I don't know.
	No, it's being thrown.
	I mean, you're missing out.
	Like, this is a high-speed physics event, okay?
	So the shirt has been thrown.
	Like, imagine something that just goes like they boom, right?
	So let's imagine.
	But I disagree.
	Let me show you this one final.
	But it's just physics.
	It's just how this works.
	It's wrong is what it is.
	Chris, you're saying that the event happened so fast, and that's why you can't see it.
	Am I understanding correctly?
	But we see the shirt.
	We were kind of fortunate, if you can look at it that way, to have that one frame from that front camera where we actually managed to catch that expansion event.
	I thought I saw signs of it from the back, but I couldn't be 100% sure because I couldn't see the neck actually as expanded as I is.
	I couldn't be positive.
	I sat on it for some days till we got that video from the front, which came out of Bednars.
	He released that one.
	So, so that's all.
	As soon as I saw that, I mean, I was looking for some sort of an explanation for mostly here's the physics.
	He was dead within about two-tenths of a second.
	It was very clear from the decorticate posturing, from just everything.
	He was just dead instantly.
	So, you have to, that's a very violent event.
	You have to account for that in some way.
	Now, I knew that if he was shot from the front with a 30-odd six, like literally, we would have seen a head flopping, super gruesome, right?
	If it didn't come completely off, right?
	If it was more on center, violent.
	Human necks are not all that strong.
	It's not like a nilk, okay?
	But so, we had to account for the physics, though, of like, how do you kill somebody that quickly?
	So, that is a very violent event.
	It requires an enormous amount of energy to be supplied, or a very, very lucky shot that just absolutely discerebrates somebody, meaning it comes through the brainstem and takes that out.
	But then he would have just been limp, right?
	The hand wouldn't have done this.
	He would have just dropped the mic and gone literally slumped limp.
	So, how do we account for all of that?
	Well, we need a very violent, high-energy event.
	So, that's why I'm saying I was looking for signs of that cavitation event because that was the next step in my process: okay, if we have evidence for a violent, high-energy dump into a body, there is going to be this cavitation event.
	Can we see it?
	Right.
	So, I had to sit on it till I thought I found that frame where I could sort of make the case that his, you see that swelling, but it maps the other physics because we have to account for the necklace flying violently off, all of his t-shirt tracking up and in a direction.
	We have to account for all this clear violence that happened.
	But what we don't see is we don't see his head either snapping backwards or forwards really violently.
	So, that means that he wasn't shot basically from up here.
	That's why I have trouble with the idea that his C2C6 vertebrae are smashed because that would have, I think, you would have seen some sort of reaction on that.
	So, now I'm trying to think: okay, what comports with that physics?
	It's a shot.
	It comes down.
	It's primarily dumping its energy down into the body cavity.
	I bet the chest swells, but there's ribs there.
	So, again, path of least resistance, where does all that energy go?
	And you can see it puff out the back of his neck, throws his necklace, throws his t-shirt.
	And again, what we're seeing is just it's very hard because we're humans and we don't think at this frame rate.
	But when you take something and you violently expand it, it's going to travel in that direction for a while.
	That includes his necklace, that includes his t-shirt.
	So, those are the physics that I've been struggling with.
	And man, I wish they would give us some more data.
	I had some body x-rays from the autopsy would be nice.
	I need to know what rounds they're claiming were used specifically because now we can actually know exactly what the foot per second of those rounds should have been.
	We can start calculating to the crack thumps, give us a position of the shooter location.
	But there's a lot we can't do.
	So, really, I wish we could get a few things out of TPUSA as well.
	And that would be the microphone recordings from Charlie's position, because that mic right there would have probably been the best capture of the crack thump because it's actually where the target was.
	And then we would have the most precise measurement for that.
	That would be awesome.
	And obviously, we need just a lot more data.
	But here's what I can tell you: my summary that he was, it's the main story that this kid maybe disassembled his rifle, reassembled it on the roof, somehow took a shot from 140 yards that was on target after reassembling a rifle without zeroing it back at the range.
	Very, very low.
	The 10, 10, 10 degrees, 10 degrees, 30 ought six round, dumping into the body, zero.
	I'm going to go full zero on that one.
	So, and then they did claim, you know, we'll call it hearsay, but they did claim that they got his heart pumping again.
	They claimed that on the hospital, they had his heart pumping again.
	That was the claim that was made, at least.
	So, I don't know.
	I don't know what relevance that has to any of this, but I figured I'd let.
	I don't know if you'd heard that.
	Well, I'd heard that, but I don't know what to make of that because if his, if we saw his jugular was ruined because we saw that the dark, very dark red blood slump out.
	If his carotid, which is right next to the jugular, had also been pierced and his heart was pumping in that, even in that next fraction of a second, we would have seen arterial spurts, right?
	Those are two to four feet typically out of the carotid.
	It's one of the most highly pressured arteries out there.
	Like, it's going to give you very obvious, very, very gory sort of a spurting.
	We didn't see that.
	So either the carotid wasn't damaged or it was, and his heart was already stopped.
	It's very hard to stop a human heart that quickly.
	You don't do it by disrupting the electrical signal.
	There has to usually be a mechanical damage to that that stops it instantly.
	Now, that could have been that overpressure event.
	Could have stopped it without ruining the heart.
	Maybe they could have got it going again.
	It's possible.
	Yeah, that's like, I forget the name of it.
	We saw it.
	They claim that's what happened to DeMar Hamlin.
	And it's happened before.
	It's very rare, but it happens in sports where they hit it.
	I forget what that phenomenon is called with the heart.
	Another thing, again, it's all hearsay, but they said, they said, oh, part of the bullet fragment hit the heart, but then they also said that they got it back going.
	So none of that adds up.
	But maybe, you know, we all kind of agree that none of that adds up.
	So we don't have to focus on that.
	But Jason, did you want to offer anything else here before I just ask kind of my final question?
	Sure.
	I was just looking at this.
	I mean, obviously, I don't know about medical stuff, but we were just talking about the C2 vertebrae, which seems to be located exactly where I'm saying he got shot.
	So that being damaged would make a lot of sense.
	And we could see that here, sort of, you know, right across from there.
	C2 vertebrae right below his base of his skull.
	The other thing that I wanted to just show you quickly is this video that just came to my attention.
	A Twitter account, an X account called The Royal Grift found this video, which this is quite interesting.
	This shows, you can see a vehicle parked under that tunnel.
	There's Charlie, and there is a minivan that opens its rear hatch just a moment before you can see right behind Frank Turek.
	Keep your eyes back there.
	The rear hatch of a minivan is opening just before Charlie is shot.
	Now, obviously, that's not proof that somebody poked out of the minivan and shot him from out of there, but a lot of people have been very suspicious about the security team, the hand signals, this guy with the Ray-Ban sunglasses.
	That's pretty darn close.
	So, sorry, I don't want to get you sensitive content rating there.
	Confirmed that that is a car there because there's other videos.
	Have you confirmed that that is a car there?
	I just saw that before we came on.
	Well, there's other videos where they're going back.
	So you could probably find another.
	Oh, there are cars back there for sure.
	I just know that there was.
	I didn't see one right there.
	It looked like there was just a wall there.
	So that would be kind of.
	Oh, no, no.
	There's definitely a tunnel there.
	There's definitely a tunnel there.
	I had Adam Bartholomew back over at the campus yesterday walking all along there.
	There is a clear tunnel.
	I had originally presumed that.
	Yeah, nobody's disputing that.
	What I'm saying is what I'm saying is there's videos where you can see every car, every location.
	I mean, there's videos of when he gets moved back through that tunnel and you can see whether there's something there.
	If it's a, if it's a car or an umbrella, I don't know, is what I'm saying.
	It's like a double wide tunnel.
	And I think they took him to cars that were on the other side of where that car was.
	But there's a minivan opening a hatch right there.
	All right.
	Well, I'll go ahead and get to, I guess, the final question.
	I think we've all kind of laid out our points here for the audience.
	I'll start with Chris.
	So do you believe whether it was Tyler or not?
	Do you believe that that shot came from that angle?
	Are you sure that that is the case?
	Or do you think it could have been another shot from another angle, just not from behind?
	Yes, the shot, almost no chance that it came from the place they say that the alleged Tyler Robinson was hanging out on the building, roof of the Losie building.
	It had to come from over to the side further.
	And, you know, I like something about 40, 45 degrees off.
	There's other building structures out there, but we'll know a lot more once we actually get some actual data out of this that we can actually finally use.
	And I need to know what those bullets were in particular.
	But I would also call on the FBI here to, you know, they showed us like this subject running across the roof, but they cut out like for some reason, the seconds right before that.
	Why not show us him getting on the roof?
	Why not show us a video of him getting into position?
	Why not show us the whole video because you have it of the shot being taken and then the kid running, whoever that was?
	Because we saw this, right?
	This is all they released.
	Again, it looks like potato cam footage, right?
	You know, it's very difficult to make anything out of it.
	But we can clearly see there's no rifle down this left pants leg.
	And there probably isn't a rifle down his right pant leg because that knee is bent.
	And it's not in the backpack because that's just not large enough to fit one of these things because this was not a breakdown model.
	And even if you did break it down, it would be from the barrel all the way to the back of the action.
	That's the smallest you could break it down.
	It's still not going to fit.
	So they have a lot of stories to get to us, which is how did this shooter get into that position with an assembled rifle that was capable of taking that shot?
	And they're not answering any of those questions.
	They're just running hard with it was the butler with the candlestick in the parlor.
	Well, and by the way, and I think that, you know, this is why these conversations are so important.
	And I'm glad that both of you agreed to do it.
	You know, to me, these are the two most suspicious things.
	Why did they not include that part of the footage?
	It's undeniable that it's there.
	It's undeniable that that shot that they have from the back behind him of that other UVU building, he is 100% in the frame when he takes that shot.
	But they intentionally don't show us that.
	To me, that's one of the most suspicious, if not the most suspicious aspect on it.
	And then you can talk about, well, where is the gun?
	Where is he?
	Where is he getting on the roof?
	They don't seem to answer that at all.
	Now, I'm just curious, if we go back to that shot that you just showed for a second, Chris, and I'll go back to you, Jason.
	Let me zoom in on this for a second.
	Just of all the possibilities, could it be possible that he just has the barrel down his leg and the rest of the parts in the bag?
	Again, even if it's a 1% chance, I just.
	It's possible that the butt is up here and the barrel is sticking down the back of the leg and it stops below the knee so that he can still bend his right leg.
	Possible.
	These are kind of tight jeans, though, to be stuffing something down.
	You know, it's possible.
	But back to your point there, Owen.
	I mean, come on.
	They said, oh, we're releasing this in the hopes that the public can help us find this individual.
	Well, then show us him moving.
	Show us the moving video.
	Why?
	Because somebody's gait is important.
	It's like, this is not the way you go about it.
	This is 2025.
	Come on.
	If you're going to say we need help finding this suspect, show us the video clip of him walking.
	It's one of the most relevant things about how a human can be identified is their gait.
	But again, they didn't do that for, I don't know, you know, reasons.
	Well, and we did.
	The most conclusive footage that we had is private footage.
	It's private footage from businesses that, I guess, volunteered it to other journalists or Candace Owens.
	It's the private security footage on people's houses where in that footage, he does appear to walk with a limp, but it's pretty clear.
	It doesn't add up.
	Did he assemble it on the roof?
	Did he have time to go on the roof and assemble a gun?
	And if he disassembled it, which they claim he disassembled it and reassembled it at some point in the woods, well, then why would he leave his assemble tool on the roof?
	And then how does he break it down and get it back together in the woods?
	Now, there's other theories that we could get into that, but I think we all agree that at least none of that adds up.
	No, it doesn't.
	By the way, there's cameras everywhere on this campus, everywhere, right?
	They're just all over the place.
	So can we see any of that footage?
	That'd be swell, right?
	And then we have this updated them, too.
	They just updated their security cameras.
	Yeah, so they should be all 4K.
	Nobody puts in any they denied Graham and requests for the security.
	I just got a denial yesterday for the security camera in the tunnel.
	Wild.
	You know, and then we have that mysterious thing where you have George Zinn, who is allegedly also at 9-11, waving his hat and saying, look over here, look over here.
	And my suspicion, I mean, the place that I want people looking is exactly not where he is.
	People should be looking up to Charlie's left.
	That would have been a great place to be looking.
	But we had somebody immediately decide all on their own, as people do, to just create a distraction and say it was me.
	You know, it's just so bizarre that I don't know what to make of that, but it's a little suspicious.
	I'd say it's more than a little suspicious, especially considering George Zinn's history.
	So Jason, I'll ask you the same question then.
	Where do you think the shooter was stationed?
	Can you even reach a conclusion on that or where do you think it was?
	Well, I've been saying for a week or two that somewhere in that tunnel, and I initially thought it would have been on the opposite end of the tunnel, but people rightly pointed out that it didn't seem like you could get the right angle on the back of Charlie's head.
	Now that I've seen that video of a minivan opening its rear door, I think that's where the shooter was inside the minivan, shooting right at the back of his head.
	Additionally, there's been all this controversy about the camera.
	Chris even incorrectly stated that Candace Owens had seen 4K footage from it.
	She's seen decimated footage over a Zoom call from what might have been recorded at 4K.
	We don't know what they were recording on that camera.
	But there are a bunch of applications where you can use a targeting camera.
	And certainly if someone in that van had a Wi-Fi feed from that camera, you could put a laser sight on the Picatinny rail for a pre-charged pneumatic rifle in a van.
	Shooting it from inside the van would provide some degree of sound insulation.
	I'm not saying that would muffle it, but you can put suppressors.
	There's a different word for it with a PCP rifle, but you can put essentially a silencer on one of those guns.
	And if you had a red laser pointing at the back of his head with a CMOS sensor digital camera, that Sony camera looking at the back of his head, that red laser would show up, even if it's invisible to the human eye, like a bright dot on a small monitor inside that van.
	It's a turkey shoot from that van.
	So you think it came from under the tunnel, right behind?
	In the tunnel, in the tunnel right behind him, yeah.
	And the other thing that is really, let's just talk about the circumstantial evidence around.
	All of his security guards, nobody took out a gun.
	Nobody hit the deck to worry if there were more bullets coming.
	It is as if there were people there who knew what was going to happen.
	Everybody acknowledges how suspicious it is that that guy took the SD card from the camera.
	And obviously, that seems to most people, including our mutual friend, Sal Greco, former NYPD officer, he's saying that's an absolute spoliation of the crime scene.
	We don't know what they did with that SD card before they gave it to the FBI or whoever they gave it to.
	We're talking about why isn't the FBI giving us this evidence or that?
	We haven't even spoken about this U.S. Army ISR jet that dropped down from 38,000 feet to just over 200 feet above ground level and did this 125-knot orbital over Utah Lake, which is two miles away from the university.
	It did this about 30 minutes before the shooting.
	This is incredibly suspicious behavior.
	This jet normally flies directly over Utah, but instead it did this little orbit.
	This is the second one it did that day.
	Nobody's explained this.
	This is public FAA radar data.
	That's, you know, independent users of that ADS-B system can check on that.
	So that's not fake.
	That's like a fingerprint.
	What was that jet doing there?
	There's a lot of suspicious activity here, Owen, and we really don't know who was involved, why this was done.
	I haven't gotten involved in any of that.
	I know a lot of people say, ooh, you know, this, that, the other thing.
	I identified drones in the early part of this investigation.
	I never said a drone shot him.
	I believe ISR drones, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, ISR drones, were launched from that jet.
	The U.S. Army has published requests for proposals in 2024 that they wanted to specifically be able to deploy drones from that jet, from that Bombardier Global 6500 Hades program jet.
	The Hades program is the high accuracy detection and exploitation system.
	And you may recall that Adam Bartholomew was live streaming this incident one second before the shot was fired.
	His live stream was disrupted.
	We've just found another TikTok user who was also live streaming who was also disrupted.
	So I think we had electronic warfare drones disrupting unauthorized recordings so that we could get these manipulated 240 frame per second recordings decimated down to 20.
	When I started talking about that, somebody got nervous and said, put out a 30.
	And now they've stopped putting out anything because I think they realize the more they put out, the more I'm going to be able to determine about what they've done.
	So I appreciate what Dr. Martin has said.
	And moreover, we've been jabbing at each other a bit, which that's fine.
	It's all in fun.
	And I do appreciate, Dr. Martin, you coming on this broadcast and speaking with me.
	It was very generous of you.
	But I think if we want to refute my thesis, we have to explain how these three dots got here, what they are.
	I do not believe that an insect would be in these three, you know, this is a line going to the back of his head right towards the C2 vertebrae, which this imaginary autopsy that nobody has seen has told us is damaged.
	But it does look like there's a disruption at the back of his head.
	And I do believe if you threw a rock in a pond, you'd get a pressure event.
	And I think if you shot a bullet at the back of somebody's head, you'd get a pressure event.
	Quickly, have you done the angle analysis of, would that line up with the exit wound?
	Have I?
	Yeah, like where you think might be.
	It deflects 19 degrees down as if it's hitting a bone or the bottom of his skull.
	I mean, from the shot, where you think the shot came from versus where the exit wound was.
	Have you done an angular?
	I'm not able to do that from one two-dimensional photo.
	And even if we had more photos at this level of temporal detail, what you're describing is beyond my capabilities.
	Well, I would like to see from one of the above shots, because you get a general idea of where you think the minivan hatch is or whatever that anomaly is.
	You kind of get a general idea.
	It looks like it's pretty flush up against the wall.
	Anyway, I don't know.
	That might be an interesting thing to see from your theory.
	So before we close out here, go ahead.
	I have one thing for you, though, because I failed to properly answer your question.
	So I have one more piece of data.
	I usually don't spend time trying to interpret people's reactions because a lot of people do that.
	I don't because it's just too subjective.
	But there was this one thing that occurred.
	And so this is taken from that video from the side.
	It's a really high quality video.
	I love it.
	This is just after the shot's been fired.
	Women are screaming.
	Soy boys are crying.
	But redshirt guy is standing here and pointing at something.
	And also you got cowboy hat guy here, and he's looking the same direction.
	You see this prowl right here?
	We can place that prow very directly.
	That's this prowl.
	So that's redshirt guy.
	I've oriented him.
	He's pointing here.
	He's pointing at this building.
	The shot would have actually been taken if we had believed the official story way over this direction.
	He's not pointing that way.
	Now, listen, things can echo.
	Eyewitness testimony is some of the least valuable and all of that.
	But it's kind of interesting if you watch this video, this guy just stands up and goes like that, you know?
	And so I think we should spend some time trying to find redshirt guy and find out what he had.
	Maybe he's got military training.
	Maybe he's been around gun ranges.
	So he's not like, you know, he's got his hand in his pocket.
	He's just like pointing in a direction.
	And that direction is right where I think we should be looking for the actual shooter.
	It would have been over here to Charlie's left.
	That's where, that's where I would go.
	So that's it.
	But that was, I thought that was interesting.
	May I ask you that red shirt guy there?
	Just so I understand the allegation there.
	This one person wearing a red shirt stands up and points to where you believe the shooter is.
	Is that what we would do?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	He's pointing at where he's planted in the audience to do that, like the person with the 240 frame per second camera.
	He couldn't possibly be on a team that set the timed digital trigger on the roof to distract people from the van and then stand up and point at it and get that on video so people can say, oh, that's where the shooter must be.
	So to pull off an operation, Jason, to have multiple plants, multiple people, lots and lots of folks, like every one of those becomes a loose thread and it becomes a much harder operation to pull off with perfect choreography, right?
	It just gets harder and harder and harder to require synchronized timings and special this's and all that.
	To me, the simplest thing you do is you get a Patsy and you have a quality, higher quality shooter off to the side and they take the shot.
	Best guess, Patsy was actually in position, probably didn't even pull the trigger or may have pulled the trigger and pulled it on a cartridge that was already fired or something.
	Suddenly realized, oh no, I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, gets up and runs, gets caught.
	I tend to agree that I think he was on the roof thinking he was going to take the shot and then somebody else took it.
	And I think when you look at the timing, and I think the most conclusive evidence for that, which I think completely disproves the official narrative, is that one video from behind, it looks like they're on the breezeway, the enclosed breezeway or the library, whatever it is, the bookstore.
	He's running.
	He's halfway across the roof less than three seconds after the shot was taken.
	I mean, so unless he's Spider-Man or Superman, I don't really, you know, I don't think he's, I don't think he's covering that distance in less than three seconds after the shot.
	Unless you guys have anything else you want to put out there, I was going to ask some final questions and conclude that.
	Well, just one more thing on what you just said.
	What you're describing is consistent with someone running on the roof as a distraction.
	Someone else is firing the rifle to give us this audio distraction because they're going to anticipate crap, crack, thump calculations and things like that.
	This guy's a video distraction.
	And this video that Chris has up there is one of the first videos that was released.
	Remember, a lot of people have been saying, why do we have so few and such poor quality videos?
	Except for this one high quality video that Zeb Boykin played on your show, Owen, that you and I had the same reaction to.
	That's the video that I allege was shot at 240 frames per second and is being deliberately disseminated out to the public.
	Because I do believe there were people in the crowd who were there specifically to distract us.
	If you could just give me the full screen for a moment.
	This is from ABC News.
	This is a screen capture from that allegedly 240 frame per second video.
	They've attributed to a student named Samir Massey.
	However, when I called Samir Massey and wanted to try to negotiate to get the original file from his phone, he was very evasive.
	And he also lied to ABC News Australia, telling them that he shot that video.
	But this is his own video from Facebook.
	And in it, we can clearly hear he's inside this building.
	And when someone tells him someone's been shot, listen.
	Go, go, go.
	Sir, go.
	Run.
	Peace, go.
	That's a shooter for that dude.
	Baby.
	Get out.
	What's happening, though?
	Someone shot.
	So this same guy who alleges that he took the video that we saw of a projectile heading towards the back of Charlie's head, for some reason, he sounds quite surprised when he hears that someone's shot.
	So I think he lied to ABC News Australia.
	There's a lot of intrigue surrounding this very best video that both.
	He could be lying for other reasons.
	So I don't know.
	Why would he want to associate himself with evidence related to a murder?
	He's not a smart guy, and maybe he got paid to do it.
	I don't know.
	You're right about that.
	All right.
	Chris, you go ahead.
	Final statement here.
	All right.
	So this is fascinating.
	So I have this video.
	This is from inside the Hall of Flags.
	And you can clearly see this is the phone starts just a second after the shot is actually taken because you can still see people reacting sort of in a wave as we go back this way.
	But I had it stabilized so we could see something.
	If you didn't see it, don't worry.
	We come back to it in just a second.
	That's the whole video.
	So, okay, we're going to zoom in 1.5x now.
	This is at 100% speed, but it's stabilized.
	Now you can see roof guy, right?
	So what you can tell is the shot has just been taken.
	People are still flinching and still falling down.
	And this guy is already running within 22 frames, which is like three-quarters, two-thirds of a second, right?
	So within a fraction of a second, this guy is already up and running after the shot has been taken.
	No more than a full, you know, second.
	So it's a fraction of a second.
	He's already up and booking, right?
	And we can place him on the roof.
	So how likely is that that this guy just manages to take this shot, get himself off of his rifle really quick, pick that rifle up and start moving in less than a second?
	Unless this guy's like a professional, burpee, you know, so you'd have to be top-level Navy SEAL sniper to pull.
	And even then, they might tell you that's impossible.
	So here's how I want to conclude this tonight, guys.
	You guys talked about, obviously, your different conclusions or the different things that you believe here.
	I'd like to kind of reach a conclusion of things we all agree on.
	So let me just lay a couple things out to just make sure we all agree on it.
	And I think this is kind of where everyone stands here, too.
	So let's just start with that.
	Do you believe Tyler Robinson took the fatal shot?
	No.
	Certainly not.
	Do you believe it was a 30-odd 6 that Charlie was shot with?
	Don't know.
	No, I think it was a .50 caliber projectile fired from a PCP gun.
	Do you think other people had knowledge that Charlie was going to be shot that day?
	100%.
	Yeah.
	Do you believe that the FBI is currently hiding footage from the American people?
	Yes.
	You're talking about not Epstein footage, just this?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	Could have been a little more specific there, I suppose.
	All right.
	So I think that because of these conclusions, and I think all three of us are on the same page here, because of these conclusions, this is why we're having these debates.
	And because of these conclusions, we're forced to do our own independent research and try to figure out what the hell happened here because obviously we're being fed lies.
	We're being fed a story that is virtually impossible.
	Now, I guess, do we anticipate?
	Because I'm at a loss here.
	I've kind of entered a holding pattern on my coverage because I'm like, they're going to have to give us something eventually, right?
	It's like we have everything possible right now, but it's like if they don't, if they don't give us something else eventually, an autopsy, you know, another, another public, you know, press conference, anything, then it's just like, then it gets even more suspicious.
	So I'm kind of in a holding pattern to see if they offer us anything else.
	But it does seem that we all agree on these things.
	And for these reasons, we don't trust the official narrative.
	It's virtually impossible.
	And that's why we're doing these independent investigations and I'm having these debates.
	So I appreciate both of you and your time tonight.
	I'm glad people wanted to tune in and get both of your thoughts.
	If anything changes and you want to reach out and maybe do this again or just do a one-on-one or present your other findings, you guys let me know.
	But I thank you for your time.
	I think it was a good, healthy debate, a good, friendly discussion.
	It's okay when we get heated.
	That's a good thing in debate.
	So I appreciate you guys.
	But you kept it cordial.
	You kept it respectful.
	So I appreciate that.
	Chris Martinson, Jason Goodman, where can people follow your work?
	Chris, go ahead.
	Peakprosperity.com is my main website.
	I put out content all week long, both free and for my subscribers.
	And obviously on X at Chris Martinson, I don't use aliases.
	I'm a use my full name kind of guy.
	Find me on YouTube, although I'm a bit shadow banned there at the moment.
	Jason, where can people follow you?
	Yeah, I also use only my real name.
	People can go to my Crowdsource the Truth website.
	Crowdsource the Truth is my show.
	And Owen, I don't know if you know this, but I am right now running a fund where people who can disprove these theses that I've put forward, specifically about what would cause these projectiles to be there.
	This is a bounty that viewers of Crowdsource the Truth have been contributing to.
	And if someone can disprove with stronger facts the facts that I've laid out, by November 4th, they can win.
	So people can.
	Chris might be demanding a direct deposit here.
	Except that he hasn't disproven anything that I've said.
	That's fine.
	But the terms of service are laid out on the website, crowdsourcethetruth.org.
	And people can follow me on X at JG, like Jason Goodman, underscore CSTT, like CrowdsourceTheTruth.
	I'm also shadow banned.
	People tell me when you search for that, you won't find it.
	So you might have to actually type in.
	A bunch of shadow banned truth tellers, a bunch of shadow banned truth tellers here.
	I appreciate your guys' time tonight, and I appreciate you guys laying out your very detailed investigation.
	I do appreciate that, and so does the audience.
	I'm Owen Schroyer, the host of the Owen Report.
	You've been watching this debate on the Wynn Network.
	I'm glad everybody tuned in tonight.
	I will see you again tomorrow.
	Once again, thanks to Chris.
	Thanks to Jason.
	And thanks to everybody for tuning in.

▲