Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Charlie Kirk Assassination Bombshell | Jon Bray Exposes the Exploding Mic Theory

Episode Date: July 22, 2026

In this explosive episode of Investigate Earth Podcast, independent forensic investigator Jon Bray joins Chad and Sheri to break down what may be one of the most important theories surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination.Using frame-by-frame video analysis, audio waveforms, trajectory modeling, physical demonstrations, and his background in ballistic materials, Jon lays out the evidence behind the exploding microphone theory and explains why he believes critical details in the case may have been overlooked or covered up.Was the Rode Wireless PRO microphone simply damaged during the attack, or could it have played a much larger role in what happened? We examine the footage, the sound, the reported injuries, the official narrative, and the unanswered questions that continue to fuel suspicion.This is one of the most detailed and revealing conversations we have ever had about the Charlie Kirk case. Whether you accept the theory or remain skeptical, Jon Bray presents evidence that deserves to be seen, examined, and debated.Visit our merch storeJon Brays Analysis Site Follow The Epicenter

And welcome to Investigator's podcast. I'm your host, Chad, alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry. Tonight, we're taking a closer look at one of the most debated theories surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination, whether the microphone itself may have played a role in what happened, and whether key evidence has been overlooked, misunderstood, or deliberately buried. Joining us is independent, forensic investigator and open source intelligence analyst John Bray, who's framed by frame video analysis, acoustic comparisons, trajectory modeling and physical demonstrations of challenged parts of the official account.

John has spent months examining the Road Wireless Pro Microphone theory and the possibility of a broader cover-up. Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, the evidence and unanswered questions deserve a serious conversation. And that's what we're going to talk about on this show. Guys, welcome to investigate Earth. Very excited for this one because there has been so many of you that have sent us John Bray's work.

obviously we probably on this podcast have covered the Charlie Kirk assassination probably 15 episodes I would guess we actually on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination we were on here probably within three hours after it actually happened that was to this day definitely the hardest podcast we've ever had to do it was extremely hard to get through it it was just very tough because it was a it was a defining moment in America I mean obviously I wasn't a during the JFK assassination. And I know that for so many Americans, that was a pivotal moment in their lives and it's something that we are still dealing with today from the coverups.

And it seems like now, you know, with more evidence has come out, more whistleblowers, obviously the official narrative of the JFK assassination was absolutely not what it was supposed to be or what they told you it was. And the interesting thing about technology today and social media is that when everybody kind of works together and really digs deep and uses all of their expertise to figure out like what are they telling us and is it bullshit that's the biggest thing and you have people like john that has devoted a lot of time to this his work has been featured on many podcasts kansas owens has talked about him pretty much any of the big podcast or

influencers have talked about john bray's work john without further ado want to welcome you to the show. Thank you so much for coming on. And I'm very excited for this conversation because I think that what you have offered up in your investigative work during this process has been kind of mind blowing. And I think that at the very least, when people really understand the work that you've done, I think that they can't necessarily say that what the mainstream media is telling us is the truth. But welcome to the show. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Not a problem. John, let me start with this. What is your background and, And why did you get involved this deep into the Charlie Kirk assassination?

Well, I was born into a fourth generation textile processing family. So I was kind of casted into handling the processing of textiles. That led me into defense contracting with the Army, developing a protocol to service and refurbish their bulletproof vest during the Afghanistan and Iraq War. They

had plenty of vests, but they didn't have a means to clean them. They kind of manufactured a new skew of vest, and they didn't create a kind of a protocol to clean and refurbish and reissue these vests. So they came to us in a

hurry. We did the test on site. The big part of the test was that our facility had six different types of cleaning technologies. And so, and I developed an additional cleaning technology for them. So we became kind of the sole providers available everywhere. So we were the sole kind of refurbisher for the Army for a good part of a year and a half. So we turned over their entire inventory so they can ensure that they had enough bulletproof vests to give to the people going to the front lines.

And in that, a lot of that was ballistic work. We had to ensure that we weren't damaging the performance of the vest. So I was exposed through kind of that indirectly the kind of ballistic side of it. And how that ties into the Charlie Kirk event was my initial impression of the event from seeing the video was that he had a bulletproof vest on. So, you know, I created my first flow map to track where the bullet impacted the bulletproof vest. But I didn't even get to run that map before I realized that he didn't have a vest on, but I already had the code made. So I ran the map anyway. And it started to flag at the kind of the code was made to flag the epicenter of the deformation.

And that if he had a vest on, that would tell me where the bullet stroke, the point. part of the vest that flexes the most is going to show you where the impact was. And so this code was kept flagging the area underneath his right collar bone. And I couldn't really understand why at first. So I went back to the videos and started to slow them down frame by frame. And then I noticed that the movement started on the right side of his body. And the trajectory of the black rectangle on his shirt seemed to follow the trajectory of where the neck wound appeared.

So it started the rabbit hole that has, you know, accumulated to this whole thesis was that that kind of discovery that that rectangle class, but I didn't know what it was when I first recognized it. Kind of seems to follow the trajectory in times with the appearance of the rectangle wound on his neck. And from there, it just kind of opened up and I just kept making more discoveries. and, you know, people luckily are very good about correcting you when you're wrong on the internet. So, yeah, whenever I did make a mistake, people are very quick to guide me, not always in the kindest way, but nonetheless, they get me closer to the truth, to the truth. And so with the help of people correcting me on X and places, I've arrived closer and

closer to what I believe is the truth. Now, I want to clarify two things. do you think that he was wearing a vest the day that he was assassinated, number one. And number two, when you're talking about the rectangle, are you talking about what you think you saw underneath the shirt? No, the rectangle was the magnetic class holding the microphone, the road microphone underneath his shirt. And the only two things that were underneath his shirt that day

were his necklace and cross-pinned it and that rogue microphone. Okay. And so you do think, though, I mean, do you think that he was wearing a bulletproof vest that day? No, definitely not. Okay, definitely not. Yeah, because when the pictures first came out and when people were slowing it down, the way his shirt was moving, it looked like almost there was a bulletproof vest. But then when people started talking and figuring out he wasn't wearing one that day, then you wonder what made those like ripples in his shirt go up. Yeah.

And that's that's what led me to start making the code to kind of, you know, use that movement of the shirt to it's like a ripple in the pond you can follow those ripples back to their source and so i just kept developing code barring from code uh from MIT labs from a few other places code that was largely already developed i just combined um different techniques together and then modified them to kind of fit the need the purpose that i had yeah Okay, so you're talking about code. I want you to explain what you're talking about to the audience. Now, obviously, I do a lot of like web design.

I do code work and all that. But what you're specifically talking about is, I guess, a code that kind of looks at all the trajectory of everything that is happening in a frame and then kind of, I guess, compiles or gives you what it thinks the actual energy source is doing and where it's going. Is that kind of the way is? Yeah, pixel flow mapping is kind of the basis on AI visual intelligence. So the means to turn pixels into useful data, and it's basically taking frame-by-frame movement from pixel to pixel and applying an algorithm to put data to that, data on kind of trajectory speed, and then kind of important.

Like, is the pixel relevant or is it just an artifact? So, you know, videos are just a bunch of still pictures combined. So if you look at frame by frame, you look at the previous frame to the next frame and analyze how the pixels move from one frame to another, it gives you a snapshot of the movement frame by frame, be it a 30 frame per second or 60 frame by second. And looking on how much movement happens in between frames, you can get an idea of how much energy is involved once you have a good scale. Luckily, for this event, I had the perfect scale that I could basically turn pixels into millimeters.

Wow. The black rectangular magnetic clasp that was on his shirt, I have the manufacturer's specs on the size that was. So I could take that black rectangular clasp from any camera angle and map it to how many pixels across it was and then tie that to the ratio of the size of the magnetic class from the manufacturer. And that gave me a direct pixel to millimeter ratio that I could use to map the movement of each pixel from regardless of how far the angle was. It was like the Rosetta Stone, if you will, for the event for me to really be able to get precise measurements regardless of where the angle was filmed from.

That's crazy. I wanted to ask a question back up for just a minute. How do we know for sure he was not wearing a bear? bulletproof vest that day because like you said, many times he did wear one. And then why this particular day? I'm sure you don't know the answer to that. But how do you know for sure he was not wearing one? Well, luckily, we have some really great high resolution still photos of Charlie that day.

It was a bright sunny day. So the lighting was almost perfect. And there were some very good photographer taking still shots of him. He kind of came out of the SUV. comes out to the crowd and starts tossing hats out to the crowd. And during this whole time, there's pitchers 360 degrees around of Charlie tossing these hats out. And he goes from tossing the hats to getting miced up to sitting down and doing the interview. So we have kind of a chain of custody of Charlie from when he arrives to when he sits down and starts an interview and high resolution from all areas around him in movement.

it. So we get to see his shirt lift up. We get to see it kind of like drape over his body a lot of different ways. And you can just see all the contours of his body. And there's, you can see his nipples. You can see, you know, the contour of his back. And there's no, you know, body armor has to be at least, you know, the most advanced body armor is going to be nine layers thick, plus the two cover layers. So you're looking at 10 layers of fabric. So it's very difficult for that to be concealed to the point where you won't see it at all. It may be hard to see, but you're going to, with only a jersey net t-shirt on, you'll be able to see the outline of it.

And we don't see any of that. So that was my initial impression. So I worked very hard to try to prove to myself that he did have a bulletproof vest on. And I was forced just to admit that he didn't. And then that took about probably like three hours of me looking at steel photos to realize that there was no way he had a bulletproof vest on. Okay, so no bulletproof vest. Now, with the coding and kind of how the, how your analysis has been compiled and what you believe about the microphone or we're going to get in all that.

What would that same method show if it had been a 30 out six round fired from the roof, what 150 yards? what would the trajectory or what would the I guess explosive impact and energy what would it have looked like would it would have been different than what we saw that day yeah it would have been drastically different we would have seen the diameter of the bullet 30 caliber you're looking at you know a third of an inch uh so it's you know more than seven so seven six two millimeters it would have the cavitation would have been 30 x that so we would have been looking at that, you know, a drastic amount of deformation of the flesh of the neck. And then the cavitation would have rippled out from the soft tissue around that.

And because that area was exposed, there wouldn't have been anything hiding it. So we would have been able to really track the movement of the neck from the impact outwards. And then the forensic science of ballistic impacts, we, we should have seen a fluid splatter out of the front of the impact, out of the rear, and more than likely it would exceeded the threshold of flesh to basically be able to withstand that sort of force.

And so we would have seen flesh tearing. It would have been a much more gruesome scene than it already was. Yeah. And if we remember that JFK assassination was awful. Yeah, and it's a very good point that the automized blood, you know, when you have a liquid and that area of the neck is full of vascular tissue that's full of liquid. And when liquid is struck by a very high kinetic energy impact, it automizes where basically it gets torn in the droplets and it turns into kind of like a mist. And the mist sustains for a long time because the droplets are really small. They don't have a lot of weight.

So it's kind of like a cloud. So we should have seen something like that. I actually used the JFK video as an example when I was doing the splatter analysis to try to quantify what we should have seen if it was an impact to that area of the neck with a 30 off six. And that was one of my references that I used. But there's no signatures of a high velocity impact to the neck.

that we can see that day, not a single one. And that was another thing that really, you know, had me pursue this thesis forward because there was no rational explanation why we had no signatures. Like, you could, you know, bullets do do weird things. And it is, you know, you have strange occurrences. But to have none of the signatures was just beyond explanation to me. Well, we've heard all this debate about entry wounds and exit. wounds and there was supposedly this was supposed to be an entry wound of the bullet but the bullet

stopped at his spinal cord. What do you say about that theory that that mainstream media is going with as far as it not having an exit wound and being the bullet? They leave a lot of important details out when they do kind of push this idea forward. You know, a bullet has a trajectory as a linear forward. So it's pretty predictable in its path. It will deviate, but it will only deviate a few percentages in any direction. And if you look at the, we know the trajectory of the bullet because they've given us a precise location of where the shot was taken.

And we know exactly where Charlie was. He wasn't a moving target. So those two things are very, very firm numbers. And when you look at the trajectory from the kind of incline of the shot to the offset of the shot, and the kind of ballistic data that we have from the very round that they now tell us was used. We have hard numbers on all that, and it's just not possible for that bullet to take a trajectory that would impact any part of his spine, any bone. It was on the outside portion of zone to the neck. It should have been a flesh through flesh shot. There's no reason for it to change trajectory enough to even nick a bone, let alone impact the spine,

you know, square enough that it could possibly stop over 2,000 foot pounds of force. It's just, it's even that would be hard to swallow if the trajectory did line up that. The spine would be able to stop that. But knowing the trajectory of the bullet and knowing the kind of ballistic characteristics that these bullets, their path take when they impact this type of tissue, it's highly unlikely that that could ever happen. Yeah, because we've talked about this on many other episodes as far as, like, we watched people fire the exact same weapon, the same bullet, and they went through like carcasses

full of flesh and meat and cement blocks. Yeah, cinder blocks. Yeah, for sure. And it destroyed all of them. Yeah, and by the way, I do want to make a point because we were talking about JFK. for those that do not know Lee Harvey Oswald or whoever actually shot JFK

that was shot with a 6-5 52 millimeter carcano or carcano 160 grain muzzle velocity is about 2,200 feet per second muzzle energy is about 1,700 feet pounds so and you talk about

a 30-06 round that's 2,700 to 3,000 foot pound of muzzle energy you're also talking about muzzle velocity is almost 2,900 hundred feet per second versus 2,200. And the big thing I want to point out is, I don't know if anybody goes back and watches the very, I guess, cleaned up version of the JFK assassination and how violent the actual hit was on his head.

Well, we know for sure, number one, that according to official investigations and autopsy findings, that one of the bullets struck Kennedy right in the head and penetrated his skull. and why that matters is because we all know how hard and dense a skull is and the difference in just keeping in mind the bullet that actually killed Kennedy versus what hit Charlie Kirk in the neck which is mostly soft tissue with you know even even the spinal uh i guess you still call that the spine or the neck yeah it is hard but i don't think it's anywhere close to as hard as the actual school. Have you done any research or thoughts on that, John? Yeah, the vertebrae, while the outside kind of layers of the vertebrae are pretty dense, the inside is very spongy

and loose. They're actually, it's made to be kind of a shock absorber. It's not really made to be a very strong bone that withstands a lot of shock and, you know, impact force. And that's why it's so easy for people to get injuries to their neck. I think everyone knows anyone from a car wreck that gets whiplash or, you know, it tends to be a very persistent injury when you have one because that bones kind of porous and spongy. It doesn't heal very well. So, yeah, it's even comparing, you know, a spine of a hog or a pig is much stronger, much denser. And they don't, with understand the impacts from from this same round you know it literally just blows chunks of the of the spine out so it it's like the amount of forces we're talking about it's almost unfathomable to think that

any human spine would be able to withstand it yeah uh i want to get to a clip real quick and this is a short clip but this was robert o'nill or rob o'nill which is the guy that killed osama bin laden and he has went on multiple news, I guess newscast, news nation, definitely Stu Peters in this clip, and there's been others. And once he started saying this, they did not allow him back on mainstream media since he's been saying this. But either way, this is Robert O'Neill and what he believes about what happened. Because obviously he does know bullet velocity and impact and what it looks like to be hit by a certain round. For example, Marine Corps snipers use a 308.

that's actually a smaller round than a 30-0-6 round and I've said this on the podcast many times John is like you know Marines they use 308s typically and they have for a very long time and it's because it's a very effective round to use to kill someone and you know even a 30-08 if you start looking at videos of a 30-08 going through carcasses and everything else it still does very well just like a 30-all-6 but 30 all-6 is just more violent but here's what robert annil said and then I'm going to get we're going to

get to the microphone theory here Here you go. Like most people, I'm a guy that has shot people at a closer range than that camera was to Charlie Kirk. And I've seen a lot of people get shot at that range closer than the camera was to Charlie Kirk. As the soon as I saw the blood coming out of his neck that was, that was not a, that was off. That was wrong. That was not a bullet. What made you arrive at that conclusion?

Explain that. Your shirt doesn't move like that. His shirt was moved by a force. What was it? That's not a bull. The trail behind a bullet is not, the vapor trail behind a bullet is not carrying enough force to do that. Why did it blow out that way?

And this is immediate. I'm talking about the thought that you can't help, but think. When I say don't think of an elephant, you just saw one. You couldn't help it. When that happened, I thought, that's wrong.

That's wrong. And I'm talking my immediate reaction. So my gut instinct is that's wrong. And then you start to further, you come out with what actually happened and then you, and then you look at the responses from the security team. There's just, it doesn't, it doesn't appear to me. It's stop the bleeding, stop the wound where we take and get them off the X. It seems more get your shit together.

It really looked like they were gathering equipment, not trying to stop bleeding to me. Again, and I'm talking about a combat veteran. I've been in 400 combat missions. That's not what you do. then my brain goes to who are the security guys. That's a really weird way to do it. And this is, I'm talking,

this is in the first second that I saw it. So there is Rob O'Neill on Stu Peters. And like I said, he's been on not just Stu Peters. He's been on News Nation. He's said all the very similar things. John, what do you think about what he said?

Because he's basically saying exactly what we're talking about and really what you have been, what you believe proven. Yeah. I mean, it was along the same lines. my thinking. You know, it's just nothing. The math of the official narrative wasn't mathing. The more they told me about what happened, the less the equation made sense. It just getting, it got more far-fetched. The more they told me more details about it. And the amount

of information that they allow people to infer that they just happened to leave out just made me question it more. Because if they seemed like they were working very hard to convince everyone of something. Well, when you're trying to convince someone of something, you add more details, important details, and they were just leaving very important details out, but adding more kind of related information that just allows people to draw conclusions

but doesn't really provide more evidence to the narrative that they're trying to push forward. And that just made me more and more suspect of it. And then as more hard data that I gathered independently came to show that, it was not aligning at all with what they were telling me. It made me kind of realize that we were dealing with a psychop and not so much as, you know, the public wasn't trying to be informed that the public was being steered to a

conclusion. Yeah. Now, let's get to the microphone idea, the explosion of the microphone. Obviously, for people that have listened to this podcast, they know that we've talked a lot about the Iran, Israel, Hamas, the whole situation. The pagers, everything. Yeah, the explosive pagers and all of that stuff. And I think once the Charlie Kirk thing happened from the very, that, you know, that exact

day, there was no one thinking, well, his microphone exploded or some crazies yet. But the more you start thinking about it and more you start looking at it, especially with all of your time that you've invested in this, what was it that made you think the microphone exploded? I mean, was it just your viewing of it and everything? Like, how did you initially say, I think, this is what it is? And do you still believe that? Well, what led me to believe that was the data that I was getting from the code.

You know, the code is unbiased. It's just looking at data. And I was running data from, you know, six or seven independent cameras. and they're all very consistent in their outcome. And so it's very hard for me to deny the data that I was seeing because it was just so consistent. And there's over 180 degrees of angles from Charlie that day recorded. So when you start to compile this data together,

when you're looking at pixels of a two, you know, basically a two-dimensional graph of the energy that we, visual energy that we have. One camera or two camera, you can be like, oh, that's interesting. But once you start to add cameras to it and that angle of observation gets wider, it gets very difficult

for you to continue to kind of ignore the data being consistent without just that's interesting. It starts to become compelling. And so consistently, the maps were flagging the epicenter of

the event at underneath that rectangular clasp on his shirt. And so that left me with, I had to reconcile that. I had to understand how can all this energy be concentrated right in this area that's on the opposite side that they're telling me that he was the round impacted. And it's underneath his shirt and the round impacted above his shirt at his neck. And what really made me conclude that it had to be a high energy event in and around the microphone is when I discovered that his necklace was blown up and over his head from the right side of his body.

And it snaps his necklace right underneath where the microphone was mounted. And not the class. So when I'm right. Not not at the class, mid link. And we actually see one of the links get launched away from Charlie at a high rate of speed. We only see it for one frame. And then it's gone. So, you know, a lot of energy went into whatever caused that necklace to snap.

enough to break the necklace, launch the link, and have enough energy left to launch it up and around his head where it rests on the opposite side of his body. That left me kind of dumbfounded because that sort of energy is not like a broad impulse. That's a very sharp impulse. That's something that would have to have very directed energy.

And the only thing that I could conclude could be responsible for that would have to be underneath his shirt, obviously. And the only things that I already predetermined were underneath his shirt that day was his necklace, his cross-pendant, and that microphone. And so when I came to that conclusion, the only way I could reconcile all the data that I had at that point was that something in that microphone case had to be responsible for that energetic kind of event that we witnessed. Yeah, so it was just a massive dispersion of energy.

Now, also, did you, I'm assuming you saw Candace Owens of the pictures that she got, right, from the SUV that Charlie Kirk came in. Shattered glass. And also, I guess, left on at the very least. The shattered glass on or the tempered glass that was on the floor of the backseat of the SUV. Have you saw those pictures? I'm actually the one that messaged her to ask her if she saw shattered fragments in the floorboard of the SUV. She showed, when she first showed the images, they were very fuzzy and she was being very careful because they're kind of graphic. And so we didn't see a lot of it.

We just saw the seats of the SUV and the paper bag with the cough drops in the back. And I DM'd her right after that show and asked her if there was black fragments in the floorboard. And she was like, well, yes, there are. So that started me. And me and Candace, our kind of conversations started from there. Wow. So with those fragments that you asked her about, with your programming or your coding, how do you know that this microphone could cause the damage it did in his neck from those shard glass, I guess? Yeah. And the bigger question is, obviously, the wound was on the left side and microphones on the right, correct? Like, how do you account for that? And those are both very good questions. And a family of analysis kind of has provided the answer. answer to those. First was the trajectory, but how does an object underneath his right

collarbone have the line of sight to be able to impact his left neck? And the answers from that come from the videos that are to, from Charlie's right side. One of the videos is shot almost over his right shoulder, almost behind him. The other one is directly to a slide slightly in front of them. They're both iPhone, 15 pros, 160 frame per second. The other is 15 frames per second. I have their originals from the people that recorded them that day. And if you look at those files, you can see that Charlie's posture, he has the microphone in his hands. Both his hands are grasping in the microphone, and they're in between his knees. And Charlie has kind of like a slumpy posture, you know, so he's kind of hunched over.

and because his hands are on the microphone and the microphones in between his knees, his arms are drawn forward. And if you do that kind of position yourself, you'll notice that your shoulders pull forward and that pulls your collarbone forward. And if you take that trajectory from where that microphone was mounted underneath his collarbone, because his arms are extended forward and he's in kind of a slump position, there's a clear line of sight across his body into that area of his neck. And then I've replicated that in video,

matching his exact posture, using a steel rod that with the microphone, his exact same brand microphone mounted in the exact same position he had it. And you can see that the steel rod clearly has a line of sight and it impacts directly in the area that we see the wound appear. And if you really line that up with, the angles from the front of Charlie where you don't have that depth perception so it's harder to understand like his slouchy position and his shoulders were drawn forward but you can see the

trajectory of the movement across his body really well you see that that magnetic class takes the exact trajectory to match with where the wound appears on his neck so you combine the angles together they're using a few different techniques. You realize that not only is it possible, that it's probably the most plausible explanation of how the shirt movement ties into the neck wound because there's also a weird phenomenon that the shirt raises up over his face.

It almost covers where the wound would be before we see the wound. And then it falls down and it's like a curtain falling. And as soon as the curtain falls down, then you start to see the wound, but the wound takes 0.4 or 4 seconds to actually produce any flow. You just see a square kind of dark area on this, a rectangle area on this neck that seems to like look like it could be, you know, produce blood, but it doesn't. It just, it's just there. And then it's not until you see him start to tilt out of the chair that it actually starts to flow blood.

And the flow of blood is very particular also because there's no pulse to it. It's just it's like a depressurization of his vascular system. And then it just stops flowing after that. You don't see any like there's no apparent heartbeat or pulse to it. And it appears to be mainly the oxygenated blood from his jugular. So the wound had to be pretty shallow. The juggler is just three centimeters deep. So the wound was just, it was pretty superficial.

It wasn't a very deep wound. Otherwise, we would have seen his carotid artery would have been ruptured. And we would have seen pulsation from his heart. It would have been oxygenated blood, more bright red, and there would have been more pulsation to it. And we didn't see any of that. So you combine kind of the trajectory, the appearance of the wound, the delayed bleeding, the type of bleeding that we do see once we see it.

and the kind of phenomenon of the shirt before the wound appears, and it all ties into the trajectory of the components of the microphone being the root cause of the shirt collar raising up across his face and the wound in its neck. The two devices, they're two separate components of the microphone that calls these two things, and they're connected to each other. So it ties those two phenomena together and also explains the delay why the shirt collar raises up over his face before we see the wound and why it seems to have

like a square shape to it. Whatever causes his shirt collar to raise, you can see the shape of the device that does it. And it's the same size as the microphone case. So it ties all the weird kind of unexplained phenomenon from that front view and ties them all back to the microphone. Yeah, and so I guess another question, too, is that a lot of people probably have when you're talking about a potential road, and it was a road wireless go pro, right? Is that, is that correct? It was the pro. Yeah, it's not the go. The pro. The pro. The pro basically has 32 gigabytes of built on memory, and then it has a advanced arm processor that allows for frame sinking. So it has a really low latency, 32, it float processing unit on it. So it's a powerful chip set that's used to perfectly sync the audio with whatever video you're recording.

Yeah. And so there's two questions with that is when people ask or maybe you've gone through this, if a microphone that is magnetically connected to a shirt blows, right? Obviously, we've seen a lot of people question, where's the? smoke and then also would he have been injured on the actual or near the area where the microphone would have went off whatever that was so you know his chest area why was it why was there not damaged there and it was just a seemed like a projectile yeah I mean we don't know but that's what there's damage like yeah why was there not smoke and then you know would he have been

injured somewhere else well the funny thing is there is actually smoke there's just because this this device is pretty small they could and obviously there would be restricted on how much explosive material they could put inside of it. But the very first frames before we see the shirt movement, we see smoke escaping out from his collar, from the front of his collar. And from two different camera angles, the camera angle, the UVU camera that was a video from the back that was provided to Kenneth Owens. You can see it clearly in that video, the first frame before shirt movement.

you see a gray, white smoke appear from the front of his collar. And then from that same side view angle that we see the necklace movement so well, the 60 frame per second iPhone 15 Pro video, you see the smoke escaping from the front of his collar. And immediately after that, you see distortion, which is basically, you know, like the shockwave. causes almost like a mirage effect on all the pixels behind it. So all the pixels that were perfectly clear before the shirt movement,

they're all blurred for a frame after that. And you can see the shockwave go across his neck and his skin on that side of his body. So there's lots of visual evidence. But the problem is that it lasts for a single frame of 60 frame per second video. So unless you're going for frame by frame and looking at it, you'll completely miss it. The other aspect is that the rogue microphone is annoyingly large. It's 44 millimeters by 45 millimeters by 18 millimeters thick. And if you look at pictures of Charlie or videos of Charlie before the Big Bang,

it's a really awkward bulge underneath his shirt. It's easy to pick out because there's the big, you know, magnetic class. there, so it's easy to see. But even if the magnetic class wasn't there, it would be really easy to know he had a microphone underneath his shirt because it was mounted on his side. So the 18 millimeter side was kind of pressed against his collarbone. And so it was sticking out basically 44 millimeters from his body. And so when you see the videos, even from the front, you can see the bulge. When the videos from the side, you can really see it's very apparent. and as soon as we see the necklace snap

and kind of take its trajectory up and around his head, that bulge disappears. We still see the microphone clasp and we see a shape underneath the shirt around the size of the clip, which is probably 30 millimeters by 20 millimeters, but the bulk of that 44 by 45 millimeter bulge is gone. And we see fragmentation,

black fragments that fly out from underneath his shirt during that same as that transition that we see his kind of shirt collar raise up and we see the magnetic clasps kind of move in the direction of the neck wound. We see from multiple cameras black pieces of fragmentation kind of flying away from Charlie at a high rate of speed. By the way, are you saying that the original dimensions of this microphone, are you saying it could have been altered potentially? No, it's just annoyingly large.

Okay, I got you. It's just really for a wireless microphone, it's just oddly large. It's just a really big, you know, and that leaves a lot of space inside the case, too, which is, you know, I needed to buy the microphone to fully understand the event. And once I got the microphone in my hand and I opened it up, it was a relevant, but elevation because it's not only is the solder mask on the board of like a weird blue color, which I've been able to identify peeking out from the underneath this is shirt collar, which I think is like a very important detail because it's a very weird solder mask.

Usually solder masks on circuit boards are usually green. This is like a blue. And I detected that color beforehand and I couldn't really explain it because I was expecting a green solder mask. but when I saw that, it made the most sense to me. And then something that I didn't realize beforehand is that the battery is almost as exact same size as the magnetic clasp. And one of my first analysis where I noticed that the neck wound was almost the exact same size as the magnetic clasp.

So originally I misidentified from the limited angles I had, I misidentified the magnetic class as being the possible shrapnel that struck his neck. It was indeed probably the battery that struck his neck. And the thing that the object that causes his shirt collar to raise up is their circuit board. So basically those two phenomenon that are unidentified. You know, nobody else provides an explanation for it. They're both tied together.

So, you know, the bulge of the large case disappearing once the necklace snaps off, the trajectory of the magnetic class kind of in the same direction as the neck wound. And then the shirt collar being raised up by a kind of a square object that peaks out and has a blue tent to it. And then the neck wound being the size and shape that it is, it all ties to the recoil of the kind of detonation, sent the internals of the microphone across his body and the trajectory that we see the magnetic class moving. but the mag glass is moving much slower because it's kind of lagging behind because the first thing that would happen during that pressurization is the case would fail the face of it would open up the glass would shatter and then the sides of the case would break loose and the internals would be ejected out and so that's the timing the shape the color the size they all match and you know we know that that glass fragmentation that was dragged to the the SUV floorboard, the back of that glass that's on the face of the Rogamag has a sticky adhesive on it. And then the glass itself is chemically tempered. So when it breaks, it's very jagged,

almost like thick, rich hooky. So it sticks to fabric really well. Like if you get it, I'll put it on automobile fabric to replicate what we saw from Candace's pictures. And I had to take a brush to get it off of that carpet because it stuck to it so much. So you imagine if this glass expands and basically gets launched underneath his shirt. While his shirt's expanded out, it's going to have a tendency to stick to it. And then, you know, it sticks to flesh too because it's a little small particulate. So it makes complete sense to me how it can make its way to the SUV. And as they're treating, you know, Charlie on the way to the hospital, you're removing his shirt or doing whatever they did,

that it breaks loose and ends up at the floor of the SUV. So you're basically kind of saying that it was the battery that actually entered? Yes, the battery. And I have good data to back that up. The weight of the battery, the size of the battery, and the speed that we see the shirt collar move from when we see the first movements of the shirt, we can assume that that's the moment that the case of the microphone failed. and we see the shirt collar being stretched up by the circuit board, which we see sticking out from the edge of the shirt,

which we can see the chips and the solder mask on it, and it's the same size. So I'm almost 100% certain that the object that caused his shirt collar to raise up was the circuit board, and the batteries attached to the circuit board, and the neck wound is the same diameter as the battery and the weight of the battery and the speed that those objects were moving, it would have penetrated around three to four centimeters into the area of his neck. And that lines up with the type of wound that we see,

a wound that was shallow enough not to get into deep vascular tissue, but just deep enough to sever the jugular. And then also have three camera angles where you can actually see the battery falling out of the neck wound and falling to the ground. And along with other fragmentation from, As he's fallen to the ground, you can see more fragmentation from the microphone falling to the ground also. And I've been able to identify that. The table that he was sitting on, there's black fragments left on the surface of it.

And I believe that is part of the motivation for them to remove the grass underneath the event because it would have been very difficult to remove every piece of fragment from the grass. Obviously, it would have been in a possible task. So they removed the grass in 10 inches of soil underneath the grass. That very next week. Yeah. Yeah, we actually, I had watched a podcast. We had reported on this a couple weeks ago.

But, you know, the guy that actually went to UVU and he was called, I think, at like 11 o'clock that night, the night of the Charlie Kirk assassination, he was a concrete contractor in the area. I watched the podcast with him, not a conspiracy podcast, not even talking about anything. I mean, I think it was like a construction podcast. And they brought this guy on. They're like, how crazy is it that you were called to UVU on the night of the Charlie Kirk assassination? And he said, we got called by someone in the government, don't exactly know 100% who it was, some federal agency.

And they said, you got to get in there and you have to do this like tonight. And he's like, dude, I can't just get people 11 o'clock at night. So he had to scramble. They met with him, I think, that night. Couldn't actually get it done until like a day or two later. But even just here in his account, right? Like his account from a contractor type podcast and he's not a conspiracy theorist. Actually, the guy is very maga, very pro Trump, very pro, you know, Charlie Kirk.

And he wasn't, I think he'd even mentioned one time about like Candace Owen's crazy conspiracies, you know, all this stuff. And I was just like, I was like, are you listening to yourself, though? like what the government had you come out and do the night of let me ask you though with everything you're saying which 100% I'm I mean number one I think you're very smart I'm so glad we brought you on this podcast yeah I was going to ask you what your IQ was by the way because you can retain all this I mean I'm sure if you do this type of investigation 20 not 24 7 but as much as you have you're going to retain a lot of that but what do you think um how do you think it would have

worked. I mean, do you think whoever it was that would have put this, this explosive, which I want you to also mention what you believe potentially explosive was, but like, was it accurate? Meaning like, did they mean for that to happen or were they trying to do something else to either send a message or actually kill them? Well, I think the very first interviews from that day tell you what the intended goal was. So the very first witness that I saw from that day was a man and his wife. He had a red maga hat on. And he said that Charlie was shot in his chest near his heart.

Blood came out from underneath his shirt. And he fell over dead. I think he was dead on the scene. And then they interviewed some college girls. There was like three groups of girls. They all said the same thing. And then it was an hour later, those same as that group of girls, all of a sudden they switched their story from Charlie was shot in the heart,

saw blood coming out from underneath his shirt, he was dead on the scene to Charlie was shot in the neck. We saw the impact of the neck and the blood coming out of the neck. So, you know, using my past experience of how, you know, from like 9-11, the weird interviews they did right after, you know, the towers are struck, It seemed to me that the mannerisms to which these interviews were conducted and the very scripted nature of how they described it with the same verbiage that their intended goal was to replicate a 30-off-6 impact to the chest. And what they didn't really anticipate was that the shrapnel would be able to take a trajectory that could impact his neck. And to be honest with you, if that battery would have impacted anywhere else in his body.

it would have just bounced off. You know, it hit one of the most vulnerable areas on the body. You know, during my body armor contracting, the key component that we were trying to preserve was a ballistic protection for the neck. And it was protecting that exact area of the neck where Charlie was struck because fragmentation from anything striking you in that area is almost always fatal because You have a vascular system that's just centimeters underneath the skin. And that skin at that area of body is some of the thinnest skin in your body.

The only area on your body has thinner skin is your eyelids. So there's very little protection for you there. So it doesn't take much velocity for something to impact and penetrate and cause a fatal injury. So I think it was a completely unattended consequence of depositioning of the microphone and Charlie's kind of posture that allowed the trajectory to line up where the strapnel from the event could impact his neck. Because if we didn't have the neck wound and we just saw the shirt move the way it did, and those first witnesses were the story that Charlie was shot in the chest,

hit him in the heart, and he died right there, I would have never looked twice at the whole event, you know, as much as keen eye that I have and kind of like, you know, as much as I'm skeptical of the government's stories, especially when they're parroted out, I would have just not looked twice. It would have mathed enough for me to look it over and be like, yeah, that was weird. Probably didn't look just like I would expect, but it was close enough for me not to take a second look. But the neck wound, just nothing matched about it.

You know, it's kind of like what Scott O'Neill was saying, you know, it just immediately my brain was like, but that doesn't make sense. I couldn't reconcile it. So it just left me with more questions. And the more I looked into it, the more it became obvious that it wasn't a high velocity impact. It was a medium velocity impact. And it was a blunt impact.

And once I started this actually identified the objects that were responsible for the unidentified movements that the official narrative just glances over that they don't even try to explain, it became more and more apparent. that had to be a high, energetic event. And once I was able to get the actual microphone and I saw the dimensions of the microphone,

then I had to investigate and explain, what could fit in the device that could explain what we saw and that could replicate close enough of a 36-30-off-6 impact that it would be plausible that when they had a medical examiner look at it or he got to the hospital that it would add at a layman's view just glancing at it, like, oh, that's a rifle impact. And that's when I discovered the shaped charges that they leave a wound channel

that's almost identical to what you would expect from a rifle impact. The entry wound is nearly identical to what you would expect from a rifle impact. They're very small. Matter of fact, the most development of all weapons that has happened in the last five years, has been the micro-shaped charge where they're implementing these very small explosive charges that are detonated remotely to go on drones. So these drones can penetrate personnel carriers, you know, plated armor. So it's a means to have a very high-impact device that can defeat medium-to-low levels of armor

with a very light and powerful kind of explosive that can be remotely detonated. Did you look into what type of explosive could have been in that microphone at all? Yeah. So the other thing I had to explain was how fast it was. So I started to look at, you know, once I identified the visual energy of the detonation, then I knew that it had to be acoustic energy also. And so I started to pour through all the audio data that I had from all the camera angles and identified the frequency that is a tent originated frequency.

It's not a frequency that originates from the roof or, you know, it's not the frequency that comes from the projectile, but it's a frequency that actually originates from the tent. All the cameras captured it that day, and it has the highest rise time of any audio that day. And that basically means from where it goes, it goes from no audio to full decimal level. So it's just like a cliff, right?

It peaks immediately. Without a rise. Yeah. And so I had to figure out what could cause that sort of millisecond type of amplitude. And the only, it had to be a high order explosive. So a RDX, PETN, something that is not your layman's type of regular, you know, not something that a lone wolf could create. This is something that was used in the Pedro attacks, you know,

is how they were able to hide that the explosive charges and rechargeable AA batteries and, you know, have them still be functional. It takes a very small amount. It's a very powerful. It's pretty stable, so you don't have to worry about it, you know, having a false detonation. It's going to stay put until you send, you know, the detonation you need. And then when it does go off, it burns very cleanly. It has very little smoke, it has no fire.

So it matched all the characteristics that we saw, and it would have fit in the device. So while have no actual data to prove that it was a high order. explosive, all the physical data that we have, be it from the frames of video to the, all the audio tracks, they do lend to the thesis that it was a high order explosive. And it explains the ability for the necklace to snap, the case to fragment like it did, and for us to only see a small amount of smoke as opposed to the traditional. just more explosive, which would have had a lot more. You know, the acoustics would have been slower.

It would have been more like along the sound of a flashbang, and we would have had a lot more smoke. And it would have taken a lot more of it. It would have been difficult to fit it inside the space that was available inside the microphone case. Yeah, and let me ask you, too, with your experience with body armor, what would a 30-0-6 round do to body armor, say from 150, yards. What would what would that look like? And I know this is, this is, this is right both sides.

It would do nothing. Do nothing. There's, there's no body armor that could protect you from a 30 off six. Okay. And the reason I wanted to make that point is because I think that's a great point. Like even if, like say for example, you had body armor, um, that was protecting the neck that day, he would still be dead right now if it was shot from a 30 out six from 150 yards. Yeah. It's when you look at the levels that they rate body armor, 30 off 6 is like the last level. Like there's nothing beyond that because even if it does stop the bullet, there's so much force that's displaced that is still going to, it's still going to be fatal.

So it doesn't even make any sense to try to stop it because it would probably be, you would probably have less fatalities if you just allowed the bullet to pass through them than it would be for you to stop it and have all that energy as a zor. you know, right there at the surface. No, that makes absolute sense. I mean, because like even with body armor, one of the things that, you know, a police officer struggle with and I guess the case for trying to find a body armor that is stab proof.

And that's tough because stabbing a very sharp, you know, high force impact right, you know, within two feet of the actual armor. That's tough because most body armor, if I'm not wrong about this, can be penetrated. with a knife, right? Yeah, absolutely.

It's a, it's a, it's very rare that you would have, you know, a civilian body armor that is made to stop, you know, handgun rounds that would stop, you know, a very pointy kind of, you know, even like an ice pick. It would penetrate it. Yeah. Let me ask you, who do you think, I mean, I wanted all your analysis. And by the way, can you before, because I want to make sure that everybody knows exactly where to go to look at all this information. Tell everybody your website real quick before we move on to what I'm going to ask.

And I want to ask before you go to that. Just one more question. Okay. Go ahead. What's your website? Yeah, what's your website? I want everybody to know exactly what it is and where they can find you because I just want to make sure I don't forget that. Follow the epicenter.com.

Follow the epicenter.com. Okay. Awesome. Yes. Sherry, go ahead. Okay. So I understand you have a very keen eye. Did you watch some of the videos where his ring went from one finger to another?

Was that what do you think that was? He wore like a hinged ring. It's diabetics wear these type of rings because, you know, if they have a vent where their body starts to retain water, their fingers swell. And so it's a ring with a hinge on the back of it. And you can actually see he has a kind of a nervous tick where he'll flick it in between his fingers, like roll it in between his fingers when he's doing. you know, these events. And so it was basically where the shock of the impact caused his hands to grasp and his arms

to raise. It's kind of like a postureing that shows that you've had a fatal injury. It's kind of like your body's initial reaction to that, that sort of, you know, injury to the chest or cardiac failure. and so when his hands grasp really tight, his fingers kind of like crossed over on each other. And so it opened a hinge up and the ring fold rolled off his ring finger and kind of fell over his pinky. And then I've tracked it all the way to the ground where it falls off

and bounces off the ground underneath them and ends up underneath the table. So yeah, it was just the type of ring that he had on. It was a hinged ring. And you can look at videos of him in other events. If you watch the whole event, you'll see him. He has a nervous tick where he'll take it and kind of flick it in the finger to finger. So. Yeah.

So have with the PETN explosive, who has access to this type of explosive, number one? I mean, is it can, you know, like Tannerite, for example, people can go and they blow stuff up all the time. But who has access to PETN? Well, that is probably the most difficult thing about this is. it's super restrictive. It's not only is it dangerous because it's a Howard or explosive, but it's pretty toxic also. So, you know, one of the only places in America that can produce it and pelletize it,

which means press it into very small forms, is accurate energetic systems in Tennessee. And the EPA has actually flagged them several times for OSHA violations where they've had employees exposed to it. that would have seizures and medical issues from it. So it's environmental toxin, basically. Yeah. And manufacturing of it, if you have a pretty good, you know,

organic chemistry background, you can manufacture it. But there's been several people that, you know, had nefarious, you know, intentions that were manufacturing it. And they end up blowing themselves up. So it's a very dangerous compound to, you know, to try to manufacture and handle. Historically, anytime anyone's ever used it, it's been kind of a state actor involved in it.

There's been a few kind of, you know, Middle Eastern outfits that have produced it, but they produce it very crudely. And like the underwear bomber, I don't know if you remember the underwear bomber. Yeah. That was PETN, but it was so crudely manufactured to it didn't detonate.

So it shows you that it's a pretty high-level complexity for you to be able to manufacture it and have it actually work. So you're looking at this is kind of state-run operations if someone's getting it. That's not to say that the state-run operation was involved in it, but they would have to be involved in the production of it for it to be of a high enough quality. You could expect it to reliably detonate. Well, we did a podcast not too long ago about a guy that worked for the explosive. That blew himself up, supposedly. And he blew himself up with this stuff. And he happened to be friends with Corey.

I can't say his last name. Well, no, his, so I think it, what was it? His wife or something was friends with Corey Comparatory's wife or something. And we don't know for sure that he blew himself up with PETN. But we do know that he had access to it, right? Do you know that story I'm talking about? Yeah, yeah. It's often used in mining operations.

So when they need to take basically a whale is a pipe. they drill in the ground. They drill a hole on the ground and they line it with metal. And when the main well runs dry, they'll go and take these PETN charges or RDX charges and they'll blow holes sideways through the pipe. And that goes to show you how directional and precise this could be. Like they're blowing holes in the side of the pipe,

but they don't blow the whole pipe up. It just literally makes a hole in the side. It's like how they're able to take, you know, that's sideways drilling, how they're able to kind of drill sideways. That's essentially how they're doing it. They're blowing holes with these Howard or explosives in the side of pipe casings. And so that is the outside of military contractors. That's the only other people that really have access to this sort of explosive or people that are in oil and gas.

Yeah. And so before the show, we were also talking. I want to make sure I bring this up. number one your website which we had mentioned earlier what is you you had mentioned something about kind of you monitor IPs and stuff that come to your come to your website with all of your information because i don't think if if no one's ever been to his website you don't understand like how complex and how detailed it is i mean if you want to lay out a case in front of a grand jury to try to convict something this is a website that you would just put on there and

explain everything throughout it um What did you say about, and by the way, in web design and stuff like that, I do the same thing. You always look at like where IPs are from, your demographics, who's coming to your website, who isn't, what countries? What did you kind of witness or see, especially since your website and Candace has referenced it and everybody has kind of referenced in it? What did you see as far as the traffic that was flowing into your site? Well, I saw a large amount of hits, but what really struck my interest was the amount of data that was being downloaded. from the website. The last time I looked, it was over 9 terabytes of data, which is a massive amounts of data.

You know, I don't have, there's media on there, but there's not like long form media. These are all pretty short clips, and, you know, it's largely analytic data and source code. So that drew me in to figure out who are, where are these IP addresses and who's downloading the bulk of the data. And so I started to see, like, IP addresses that weren't for me. familiar with. They kind of follow a pattern. Like you can kind of see domestic and residential IPs. They kind of have a number set that you would expect. And so the odd ones I would go and research and see who owns them, what areas they're coming from. And I kept consistently getting

VPN services from Spain, from Sweden. And then I researched these VPN services and they're largely used by intelligence services in other countries. So, you know, the only thing I can include is that, you know, these intelligence services, services are basically, you know, hoovering up data that's related to this event and, you know, they're downloading basically the entire website multiple times and multiple different. What countries in particular? Spain was the biggest one. Spain is the largest, largest one. I don't remember the company exactly that runs a VPN service, but they contract to a lot of European countries.

for their intelligence services. And that's the largest one. The next largest one is Sweden. But it's like tenfold more than any other countries. So, you know, it's not like there's even another one that's close in comparison. And it's all VPNs. It's not like I get regular Spanish, you know, non-VPN connections there. It's like if I get a connection from a European country, it's almost always a VPN.

and people use VPNs a lot. But, you know, to like a to browse a website like that is probably not all that necessary. It's probably a little overkill. You know, it's just a public website. But are you talking about, are you talking about the intelligence countries that were using these were Sweden or Spain? Or are they like proxies? No, no, the companies that contract for these companies that run the VPN. So what country is?

Yeah. So what country intelligence do you think was accessing it? know? I have no idea. Once I hit the VPN, it's a dead wall. It's a dead wall. You can get past that. I got you. But you know it's intelligence. I can see who, I can see who contracts with them, though. I can see who uses that VPN service, what countries use that VPN service. And it's European countries. So Middle Eastern and European countries were all the countries that are coming up that use these VPN services out of Spain mainly. That's interesting. Yeah. I mean, and, and That's why I say, you know, have you thought about, obviously, we've talked about all the forensics and investigative type stuff, not all of it.

I mean, there's so much. That's why I think you guys all need to go to his website. But have you thought about, like, why they wanted Charlie Kirk out? If this was not what they say it was, this was not some random guy, the LGBTQ plus or he was with a trans person or whatever, you know, like what is the reason they wanted Charlie Kirk out? and who do you think might be the most responsible? I couldn't really explain that at first. It was kind of a mystery to me. Like,

I didn't even know that Charlie had kind of a falling out with that Nalue and, you know, his whole, you know, I kind of always saw Charlie as like a Zionist light, like it's kind of apologetic to the movement. I didn't realize that, you know, he was having a pretty big falling out with it. And I think it's very telling the very first people that told us. that Charlie was passed. And then that they immediately come out and make multiple videos saying that we didn't have anything to do with it. You know, I think that's very suspect when we know now that there was a falling out and that, you know, they were basically denied access.

They were wanting access and control over Charlie and his infrastructure. And they were denied that access. Well, it's interesting that then Shapiro's security, they got notified while they're going to the hospital. And it was the same security that I guess Charlie Kirk was using. Yeah. And then Ben's mannerisms in their last interview was very strange to me. It's like it was almost like a demon took over Ben for a second.

Like his whole demeanor changed when Charlie trying to kind of fell off script and, you know, tried to started to kind of not toe the line anymore. It was like his whole mannerisms changed to him. I always found that was really strange. but I couldn't make the connection. But now hindsight, we can look back and see that Charlie would have been a huge obstacle to the quagmire of the Iranian, you know, a war that we have going on now. He was a voice of reason.

Everything that he was saying would happen if we took this on is happening. And so it would be very difficult to have Charlie out there with the, you know, the hindsight of him warning us exactly. what would happen and us experiencing that now. And, you know, he's very eloquent and he had a large movement. It would be a huge obstacle for the people that benefit from this, which is a very small group of people that benefit from this Iran endeavor. Most of the world is suffering from it.

And so, you know, we look at the people that are enriching themselves from this. They're the very same people that would have the power to not only, you know, help cover up any event that may have happened to Charlie, but they have the type of power to spread that message of the left killed Charlie and the, you know, the, for the furry loving leftist is responsible for it. It is they versus them. They took out, they killed Charlie. You know, it all starts to come together now that we are, you know, almost a year removed.

It's pretty clear to see that Charlie would have been a huge issue. Yeah. It's been very difficult. Yeah. Did you watch any of the pretrial with Tyler Robinson, like the stuff that went on, not, I guess last week? I guess the evidentiary hearing or evidentiary. That's probably saying that wrong. But did you listen to any of that?

And what was your thoughts on it if you did? Yeah. It was exactly what I was expected. Because when I went over the charging documents and kind of where they were building up for probable cause, it was not what they said. It's what they didn't say. that that told you everything. And so they manipulated the public by using very clever language to insinuate that they had hard evidence when they, in fact,

had no hard evidence. So like, for instance, we recovered DNA from the rooftop from smudge fingerprints. So when you portray that through official means and you've convinced everyone that Tyler is guilty. The layman's going to hear that and they're going to say, okay, they have Tyler's fingerprints on the rooftop and they have his DNA. And here we are, hindsight, again, we know that the DNA from the rooftop didn't match Tyler and the fingerprints that they got from their rooftop didn't match Tyler.

And so it's just more manipulation. It becomes obvious. By the way, it wasn't like 60 or 70% of the DNA was his roommate. It wasn't even his. Twigs. Yeah. Every key piece of evidence that they have, which is very limited. I mean, they have the towel. They have a rifle which is owned by him, which you would expect his DNA to be on his rifle. And they have a screwdriver. And every piece of that evidence also has his roommate's DNA on it also. And this roommate happens to be the same, you know, a build as him. And we don't have

a positive idea of Tyler in the afternoon of the event. We don't even have a positive. of ID on him during the early morning hours. It's a little closer to what we would expect him to look at. But we don't have an idea of the rifle on the roof. So we don't have the murder weapon tied to the crime scene. We have the murder weapon appearing in the woods, but we have no evidence of it being put in the woods or who put it in the woods. And we have no evidence of Tyler being on the rooftop other than a screwdriver that was found on the rooftop.

And the screwdriver was found by. officer who was accompanied by an unnamed officer from an unknown branch of government that has no name. And then his camera dies. Yeah. He had a badge and a gun. And that was all that officer needed. He was like, all right, he's a good guy.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. And his body cam dies. 28 minutes later. Before he sees the, so it's the chain of custody for that key piece of evidence is completely broken. I mean, a screwdriver is probably the least convincing, you know, Charlie wasn't killed with a screwdriver. I don't know if anyone is aware of that. And I think anybody's ever loaned tools out, you know that, you know, the screwdriver is probably the easiest thing just to walk, walk away

and you not notice. And the DNA was degraded on everything. You know, Tyler's DNA was the most degraded on the rifle. The rifle barrel had dust inside of it. It's just more and more inconsistencies. Oh, tell me about the dust. Would you expect it not to have dust if it was just recently fired? Yes. Absolutely. You just had a tremendous amount of force go through that barrel.

Like the likelihood of it having dust when we're told that the only trip it took was from the roof to the woods, which was a very short trip less than a few minutes. The likelihood, and it was covered in a towel. You have to add that. It's not like he drug it through the desert. Like he had it hidden underneath a towel. And we're supposed to expect that it had dust on it. And I think it's, again, what they don't say.

When they said that it had dust on it, what she was saying without saying is that she didn't see the gunpowder residue she would expect from a rifle that was freshly fired. But she couldn't say that. So she told you what she could say, which they had dust in it and she didn't expect to see dust in it. You know, it's very apparent to me that, you know, as the court proceeded and the case became clear that it was very a soft case,

that there was very little evidence. The last day, the whole 4K influencer event, that just shows you that, you know, someone with power called and said, hey, we need to make sure this thing is a slam dunk. We need something special and spectacular to close with. and that's why they they allowed the the influencers to you know come in on a red carpet and and say that you know they saw overwhelming 4K evidence you know it's just it's it's it's more by the way that you didn't see like that remember all the influencers came in after they cut the cameras in the in the courtroom that you're not allowed to see anything after that point

and they brought in the influencers that then went and reported on X Benny Johnson all these others that said oh no this is irrevocable evidence we saw it we 100 if you saw what we saw he's guilty yeah there's no okay but all of a sudden you're going to cut off the damn cameras and allow these same paid influencers in my opinion they're paid influence they're never used to think that but we've talked a lot about that on this show um john do you have a couple of seconds to listen to a couple of clips uh i don't know how long you have but we're not going to stay much longer but if you have just a couple of seconds to listen to a couple things yeah absolutely all right um The reason I want to play this is because, you know, we obviously have talked about the kind of investigative stat forensic aspect of this with John.

And I think John's done an amazing job. And it's interesting today before you came on, I was just scrolling on X and I two things popped up in my timeline. And I was just like kind of blown away by what the two things were. And the reason why I asked you was like, well, who could be responsible? Why would they be responsible? All this is the big question. You know, obviously there's a huge group of people that says, oh my God, I can't believe you would ever say Israel would do this or a Middle Eastern country or this is ridiculous.

And even further, like even if you say that the United States government might be involved in some way, you have to understand that as John was also mentioning, leading up to Charlie Kirk assassination, that he was shifting his beliefs and opinions on a lot of things. And if we remember anything about Charlie Kirk was he was the biggest movement leading up to the 2024 election of Donald Trump of any movement probably in political history. And I'll literally say that. And Trump knew that Trump had a direct ear, or I guess Charlie Kirk had a direct ear to Trump. And so a lot of things that's happening now are different. And Joe Kent just said today, he said, you know, there was something that happened about the first six months of the,

Trump presidency is almost like they evaporated his soul and put in a new body and put in a new soul to this person. Like everything that he campaigned on everything. And it was right around the time that, you know, Elon Musk came in and then they kicked him out. And if we remember anything, Elon must left with a black eye with a black eye. And, you know, Doge was done. All of that stuff was done. And this is when Trump completely shifted.

But I do want to play one. clip first is a very short clip but this is charlie kirk leading up to the twenty twenty four election this is what he said on stage at a trump rally and then i'm going to play another clip of literally where his mindset and his shifting was about the israeli packs and donors because this does matter you know if if you want like uh hey well who would possibly be responsible well we got to at least evaluate what charlie has said and and there were two clips that popped up on my timeline today and I was like, holy shit, this is kind of like meant to be on my timeline. Right.

And not to even mention all the text messages that have come out. Yeah, absolutely. But this was Charlie Kirk at the Trump rally leading up to 2024. Listen. You know that you are part of the most exciting, diverse, powerful movement in the history of this country. And this movement, this movement is not about Republican or Democrat. This movement is not a. about conservative or liberal. This movement is about the citizens versus the oligarchs.

This movement is about we the people versus the ruling class. This movement is about America versus the globalist. This movement is about all of us against them. And that was one of Charlie Kirk's. And that just gave me goosebumps all over my body. Yeah, this was one of Charlie Kirk's defining moments. And then I also want to play because I think this is also important. As I said, Charlie Kirk was a huge influence as far as the movement going forward, the America First Movement, everything that that meant.

And this is what Charlie Kirk said, not very long at all before he was assassinated. Listen. There is a real reckoning. happening. By the way, there are self-hating people in any group, right? And there are some Jews that are still like making excuses for all this. Not all of them, though. You're starting to see a fair amount start to defect and say, hold on, hold on, hold on a second. What have we done? Maybe those crazy right-wingers were right about immigration that you can't keep on importing people that don't share your values. The ADL, by the way, has spent decades. The ADL raises nearly

$100 million a year to just quote unquote fight anti-Semitism. They've been oddly quiet recently. Why? It's because they're only focused on random conservatives in middle America. The ADL makes liberals think that random Trump voters in Idaho want to do a second Holocaust when the Jew haters were right in front of them the whole time. In fact, the ADL demanded we let the Jew haters in. And in a stunning turn of events, the people that the ADL said were Jew haters are actually the biggest defenders of Judaism and Israel right now in the country, us, conservative evangelical Christians. And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal, quasi-Marxist

policies, cultural institutions, and non-profits. This is a beast created by secular Jews. And now it's coming for Jews. And they're like, what on earth happened? And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood.

It's all of it. It's like, time for you guys to wake up and say no more. Draw a line to the sand. I don't care if you hate me. I will not live through another Holocaust. I'm not going to do it. So there you go. And so he was basically saying there that, you know,

the same people that are screaming anti-Semitism are the same exact people that are causing the problem in America. And it wasn't just this clip that that kind of resonated with me today, but it was also so many other clips leading up to his assassination, to where he was really starting to be highly pressured by the Israeli packs, the A-PAC, the various other groups of people that were heavily funding, or at least trying to heavily fund, Turnpoint USA. And then obviously after the Charlie Kirk's assassination,

you see this massive shift in how Turning Point USA is viewed, how Turning Point USA is representing themselves, and also everything that they're trying to do going forward, it seems like it's not at all about what anything Charlie Kirk wanted. It's about what the establishment wants, what the agenda wants. And so I wanted to play those two things because for your investigative work, John, you know, I think it's important, number one, and I think you've done a great job with your reporting, your website everything you say is not being necessarily like hey here's who did it here's who potentially did it but here's the evidence i'm seeing and like this is what this is why i'm saying

this is what it is you on your website you're not being like hey this is the jews that's that's not what you're you're literally just saying hey here's the evidence i have compiled and here's the analysis and that's why i wanted to play that and i wanted to ask your opinion on that because regardless of your opinion on that that's not what you've led from that's not what you have uh presented your evidence for you haven't necessarily presented your evidence for against even when i ask you about your website and the data the data downloads but i think it's also important right i mean you don't go to you don't go to court and say well here's exactly what happened okay well then who's the perpetrator right i mean there's there's there's going to be and that's the problem and i think

that you know just today the house just passed um crazy enough the the i guess basically combining military, Israeli military. There's a lot of stuff. They're going to start sharing intelligence. Well, the House did, yeah. Oh, dang. And now it's going to go to a final vote and it'll probably be passed in the Senate, maybe, but who knows?

Anyways, I'm saying all that to say this, John. I just wanted to make sure that, like, at the very least, people understand that there was potentially a reason. And maybe you could have other reasons. Maybe you could say, well, it's because he said them about trans or he had had this ideology. But, like, what do you think is? But John came out in the beginning and said,

He looked at it. It didn't look right. And he analyzed the data. He had no bias in it. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, because by the way, John, your evidence that you presented has no bias. It doesn't mean that like, well, this proves that this person did it necessarily. There might be some clues, but that's not why you started this.

And that's not what your investigation is trying to necessarily prove either, right? Yeah. I'm simply trying to identify and explain what we've noticed. I think that, you know, the physics of it, they don't lie. We have an ironclad record of what happened that day through all these independent cameras and the independent audio. And they tell us the truth. We just have to quiet the noise down of the narrative we've been fed and trying to reach a conclusion of who's responsible and just look at what's responsible. And once we arrive at the conclusion of what's responsible, then we can more accurately assess who is responsible.

Yeah, for sure. Man, I'm so glad that we had you on, John, because I honestly think we could go for another hour or two. And we could just prove so many other things. But I want to make sure everybody, before we go, and by the way, is there anything else that you want to highlight or mention that maybe we have not touched on before we go? just go to the website you know everyone has a different kind of like you know aspects that they're curious about and more than likely i i have analysis on it so you know if there's a part of the event it just rubs you wrong that doesn't make sense to you go to the website and browse around more than likely you'll you'll find that answer there so that's that's and i'll be updating it that you know

I'm like a month behind. I really try to make sure anything I put on the website is, you know, solid. And again, if you see anything on the website, do you think is incorrect? Please let me know. Like, I make mistakes all the time. And I depend on people to point it out. That's why I provide my source files. I provide my source code.

If you find anything that you may think is wrong, even if it's a small detail, please let me know. I will correct it. Like, I'm not dogmatic. I'm not trying to. be the expert guy that got everything right. I'm just trying to arrive at the truth because it's important for us all. We should all be, you know, our liberty really is on the line. If we allow this to go, then, you know, Charlie was standing up for us. We just heard in that

video. That's what he was standing for. And if that's the reason why he was assassinated, then we're all in danger. All our liberties are in danger. So it's important for us to all to take a fresh look at this and really analyze it for what it is and not allow ourselves just to be spoon-fed of what to think about it. I don't know if you can answer this question,

but have you been contacted by the defense team at all? Or do you feel like they have looked into the evidence that you're providing? I haven't been contacted. by the defense team, but I have been contacted by people that are closer to the event than the defense team. And, you know, I'm protecting my sources, but what I've been told is as far exceeds what I've revealed. I'll put it that way. So, you know, it's what we know from what I've published, there's a lot more to the story that can't be told because other people's livelihoods are at stake, but from people that are very close to the event,

ground zero the event, what I've been told by them is damning. And the official narrative just, it doesn't hold up. It's everything about it. And I think if we look closely, it's been long enough. We look at the people that were in charge in and around the event. Look to see where they go. Are the rats jumping the ship? And that tells you everything you need to know about the event.

If everyone in and around the event is leaving, if they're leaving their jobs, they're going to different states, you know, that tells you everything you need to know. This is a classic, you know, kind of a scenario where when people get compromised by the state and they do something that is largely against their own will and they know that they're compromised, they leave their position, they leave the state, they find new positions, they go far away from where that event happened. And I think that we can look at the people in there around that we're in charge of the key aspects of the event, and we see that happening. So it just reflects further that, you know, what we're being told about what happened is not the case. And the FBI came in quickly, took everything over, and everyone's under the pressure of the state to tow a line. And, you know, people are buckling from it. And we have to take note of that, you know, the very people that they're experiencing. making us to trust their word, you know, they're getting as far away from it as they can.

And I think that's very telling. Yeah, and that's coded language, by the way, guys. Oh, it is. And I just think about what he's saying there. And I just want to, I just want to ask one more question. I'm sorry. Do you fear for your own life because you've investigated this? No, I don't think so.

I think I'm far enough removed that, you know, the website actually provides me a certain amount of insulation because my work's already out there and free. So it would give my work more relevance to do something to me than just to, it's easier to just make me a kook, an internet conspiracy kook. As soon as something happens to the internet conspiracy kook, then he becomes legendary. So I have some understanding on how, psychological operations work. I have some grace in that.

But more than anything I have, I have faith. So which is your hat all the way right now. Faith and God. Well, man, I'm so glad you came on, John. And listen. It's mind blowing what we've gone through tonight. Like, this is amazing. And maybe one day you'll come back and we can talk about further detail.

Because, I mean, there's so much to talk about here. It's ridiculous. And we're going to share you far and wide, guys. As Tom provides. I'll be able to reveal more. And there'll be, I'll promise you, there'll be a much more conclusive. We'll be able to understand exactly what happened at this event one day. I'm confident of that.

Yeah, I believe that. And by the way, guys, John, say your website one more time. Follow the epicenter.com. Follow theepicenter.com. I want everybody to go check it out and also go to X or wherever you can find John Bray. Go follow him. I think he has done an amazing service to all of us. He's fighting for us.

like Charlie Kirk has, I mean, or was. And, you know, we have to get the truth out. We have to figure out a way to weed through the BS that we are constantly given on a daily basis. And you need people smart like John. And that's all I will say. But John, man, thank you so much for coming on again. And we really, really appreciate you. Thank you.

All right, guys. It's been great. God bless. It has. But guys, that's going to be it for us. This is, we're going to end it with Harden, America. We actually started with Hardin America. We're going to end it with Hardin America because I think that this song makes sense, right? And it was like, sometimes I just go to a song and then it just

kind of picks itself for the topic. And I think this song does kind of pick it. But I want to like make clear that usually I don't ask you to do this, but I think it's very important to spread this podcast and get it wide open. So if you're hearing it and you, you believe what we're saying and you're hearing the evidence, I think you need to share it with your friends. Yeah, far and wide, no matter where it is. On your ex, on your Facebook, on your send it to friends, send it to anybody. I think this episode matters. I think that what John has had to say is extremely important.

And I think that people need to hear this. I mean, even people that are 100% on board with like, hey, Tyler Robinson did it. That's the end of the story. No matter what, those are the exact people you need to share this with. And I mean, I'm not saying you can't share with people that don't also believe the same shit. We don't believe. But I'm saying share it with the people that that believe 100% the manufactured story of what they're trying to tell you happen to Charlie Kirk. And I think that's the most important thing.

But guys, that's going to be it for us. We love each and every one of you. It is, it is hard in America. And I think that the warriors, the people that are trying their very best right now to fight against the system, fight against the agenda. we got to support those people. We got to share their work far and wide. And guys, we love you so much. Thank you for listening.

John, thank you so much. And until next time, peace out. Peace out. It's been whole ever thought it gets so bad. I wish that it'll be dead. Fly the tears away. It's precious to say it ought to speak.