Speaker 1: Today, I want to welcome back to the show writer Lee.
Speaker 1: He's a filmmaker, researcher, and host of Raised by Giants podcast. Writer,
Speaker 1: Welcome back. How you doing doing good?
Speaker 2: Chris?
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me on. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: It's great to have you back.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 1: Looking forward to this. We're going to get into some
Speaker 1: of the research you've been doing into the multiple anomalies
Speaker 1: associated with the Charlie Kirk assassination. You've been pointing out
Speaker 1: several aspects that we presented that don't add up, including
Speaker 1: what's going on with this current Tyler Robinson trial. There's
Speaker 1: a lot to get into at this Before we do,
Speaker 1: remind the audience a bit about yourself if they're not familiar,
Speaker 1: and let them know how they can find more.
Speaker 3: Yes, my name's Rider Lee. I run a podcast and
Speaker 3: YouTube channel called Raised by Giants. You can find me
Speaker 3: on any and all podcast platforms. Find me on social
Speaker 3: media on Facebook x Instagram at Raised by Giants. And
Speaker 3: I'm looking forward to the conversation because the entire Charlie
Speaker 3: Kirk scenarios, it's like this giant rabbit hole that you
Speaker 3: just keep things just keep getting stranger and stranger, and
Speaker 3: none of it adds up at all period, and it's
Speaker 3: just this thing that just keeps going, and the official
Speaker 3: narrative never made any sense, and they keep trying to
Speaker 3: push the official narrative, and I think people are really
Speaker 3: waking up to that, and it's kind of like we
Speaker 3: just reverted back to the very beginning of it with
Speaker 3: the preliminary trial because basically Tpusay brought in a lot
Speaker 3: of these media people, like a lot of like MAGA
Speaker 3: pro TPUSA people, and at the end of the trial,
Speaker 3: they basically said that they saw all four K footage
Speaker 3: of Tyler Robinson HD four K footage of Tyler Robinson
Speaker 3: taking the shot, which I knew that they were going
Speaker 3: to try and pull something like this, so I made
Speaker 3: sure that I watched every single preliminary hearing video and
Speaker 3: there was a lot to take on and a lot
Speaker 3: of people didn't have a lot of didn't have the
Speaker 3: time to do that, right because some of them are
Speaker 3: like eight hours, you know, this is just court room
Speaker 3: stuff for like eight hours, you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: back and forth between the prosecution and the defense. And
Speaker 3: so at the end of the fifth day they said
Speaker 3: that they had this four K ultra HD footage a
Speaker 3: lot of these people like Benny Johnson, even some Meghan
Speaker 3: Kelly brought a bunch of people on that was talking
Speaker 3: about how they saw this footage, and she's kind of
Speaker 3: buying into it, Dan BONDI.
Speaker 1: Where's this footage supposedly coming from all of a sudden.
Speaker 3: That's the thing that is the whole deal. And if
Speaker 3: you watch the end of the day one of the
Speaker 3: pre preliminary trial, you'll see that the state tries to
Speaker 3: bring into evidence and show to the court this enhanced
Speaker 3: footage that is being zoomed in and has circles around it,
Speaker 3: like red circles, because the footage is so freaking blurry
Speaker 3: of this gentleman running across the rooftop right, it's far away.
Speaker 3: Footage is super blurry. So they're trying to present and
Speaker 3: bring into evidence to the court that this enhanced footage. Okay,
Speaker 3: So the defense comes in and is like, hey, we
Speaker 3: don't think this evidence should be submitted because it's been enhanced.
Speaker 3: There's red circles that's been put in it, there's zoomed
Speaker 3: in footage. So then the judge does, well, yeah, I
Speaker 3: agree with that, we should not let this enhanced footage
Speaker 3: be This should not be put into evidence and it
Speaker 3: should not be seen by the courtroom. But what you
Speaker 3: can do is show us the raw footage. So at
Speaker 3: the beginning of day two they released the raw footage
Speaker 3: of this enhanced footage, and the defense says that there's
Speaker 3: no footage of anybody taking a shot, so we show
Speaker 3: that footage. They show some ring camera footage of supposedly
Speaker 3: Tyler Robinson's vehicle at around midnight a little bit away
Speaker 3: from UVU campus that was captured by a ring camera,
Speaker 3: and the agent Hall, which was up there testifying, said
Speaker 3: that they know that it's Tyler Robinson's vehicle because the vehicle,
Speaker 3: you could distinguish the tires on the vehicle, so all
Speaker 3: you got to do is look at the tires and
Speaker 3: you know that it's Tyler Robinson's vehicle. But the footage
Speaker 3: they showed previously that was Tyler Robinson's vehicle supposedly pulling
Speaker 3: into the parking garage early that morning at nine am
Speaker 3: on September tenth, was not Tyler Robinson's vehicle. It was different.
Speaker 3: There was a license plate holder on the front of
Speaker 3: the vehicle. It had a single exhaust, Tyler Robins exhaust
Speaker 3: of his actual vehicle was different. He didn't have that
Speaker 3: front license plateed. And that the reason that we know
Speaker 3: that is because whenever the police and the FBI went
Speaker 3: to Robinson's house to search it and confiscate his stuff,
Speaker 3: the police took pictures of his vehicle. It's not the
Speaker 3: same vehicle that was shown in the surveillance footage on
Speaker 3: September tenth in court, So back to their original footage.
Speaker 3: So after they showed the footage and Agent Hall testified
Speaker 3: and said, uh uh, this is we believe that this
Speaker 3: is to be Tyler Robinson. They can't prove that it's
Speaker 3: Tyler Robinson. It could literally be anybody. It could be
Speaker 3: freaking Tom Hanks, it could be whoever it is. There's
Speaker 3: no clear the footage. The photograph that they released on
Speaker 3: the day of assassination or the next day of the assassination,
Speaker 3: is more clear than the footage that they shown and
Speaker 3: in court the photograph. Where is that photograph? Why didn't
Speaker 3: they show that photograph of his face? I'll tell you why,
Speaker 3: because it's not Tyler Robinson. Okay. So, and people would
Speaker 3: know that because you can if they showed it in court,
Speaker 3: a super clear image, you could compare that with the
Speaker 3: images of Tyler Robinson and see that it's not Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 3: Any sane person can look at those photos side by
Speaker 3: side and realize that it's not Tyler Robinson. Okay. So
Speaker 3: the state decided they said, well, we would like to
Speaker 3: show the enhanced zoomed in the footage later on. Would
Speaker 3: you be opposed to showing the enhanced zoomed in footage
Speaker 3: with the circles and everything later on in the preliminary trial.
Speaker 3: And the judge said that he would take that into consideration. Okay.
Speaker 3: So that at the end of day five, the state
Speaker 3: asked the judge again if they could show the enhanced
Speaker 3: footage of the footage that was already shown on day two,
Speaker 3: just zoomed in with circles and everything. Yeah, okay. Now,
Speaker 3: mind you, the defense had just questioned an ATF agent
Speaker 3: on the stand that did DNA analysis of all the
Speaker 3: things that was found on September tenth, okay, and she
Speaker 3: disclosed that there were three other people's up to five
Speaker 3: other people's DNA on the rifle.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: So out of the people that we know is Tyler
Speaker 3: Robinson's dad, Lance Twiggs, and Tyler Robinson's DNA and there's
Speaker 3: two other unidentified people that DNA is also on the rifle,
Speaker 3: and out of those people's DNA that is on the rifle,
Speaker 3: Tyler Robinson's DNA is the most degraded. Huh interesting, which
Speaker 3: means essentially means that he did not handle the rifle.
Speaker 1: That he wasn't the last one to handle it, right, at.
Speaker 3: Least exactly exactly he wasn't. Okay, So Lance Twiggs couldn't
Speaker 3: even identify Tyler Robinson based upon and the thing about
Speaker 3: it is is too is the Lance Twigs. It's his
Speaker 3: his lover, right yeah, yeah, trans lover. People call him
Speaker 3: a fur furry lover. I don't know if he was
Speaker 3: really a furry or not, but I don't think that
Speaker 3: he was a furry. I think that he's just a.
Speaker 1: It adds to the chatrics of everything, exactly.
Speaker 3: I think he's just a trans dude or a gay
Speaker 3: dude that likes dudes. So he couldn't even identify Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 3: He said that it looks like Tyler Robinson because Tyler
Speaker 3: Robinson also wears jeans and a hat. Okay, So just
Speaker 3: like Agent Hall said that it looks like Tyler Robinson's
Speaker 3: car because we could tell by the wheels of the.
Speaker 2: Car that is Tyler Robinson's car.
Speaker 3: Lance Twiggs can tell that it's Tyler Robinson because he's
Speaker 3: wearing jeans and a hat. Okay. And it turns out
Speaker 3: that the ring camera footage, the people that the ring
Speaker 3: camera footage said that it was a bald man driving
Speaker 3: in the vehicle, and that there were three other people
Speaker 3: in the vehicle.
Speaker 4: And do you remember that the nobles told you that
Speaker 4: the driver of the vehicle was bald.
Speaker 3: I do remember that being in the rouport.
Speaker 2: Yes, And you.
Speaker 4: Didn't mention that today when you were talking about that
Speaker 4: ring camera, did you I did not. And did they
Speaker 4: also tell you there were three other people in the car?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: I believe they thought that was the case.
Speaker 3: Okay. So the entire thing has just completely falling apart.
Speaker 3: So the only thing that they really had was okay.
Speaker 3: So at the end of the day five again they
Speaker 3: asked the judge if they could show the enhanced footage.
Speaker 3: The footage that they have already shown in day two
Speaker 3: of the preliminary trials is zoomed in. Okay, It's the
Speaker 3: exact same footage, no different, except that zoomed in and
Speaker 3: has circles, read circles around it, so you can tell
Speaker 3: where the person is on the roof, because with the
Speaker 3: zoom doll footage, it just looks like a freaking blob
Speaker 3: running across the top of the roof. Is all it
Speaker 3: is is a black blob. So all they did was
Speaker 3: zoom in. Anybody has a zoom in future. You're an editor,
Speaker 3: you've made movies, you have movies, I'm an editor. Anybody
Speaker 3: can zoom in on that footage. Okay, it doesn't make
Speaker 3: the footage anymore clear. No, often it makes the footage
Speaker 3: even worse because you're zooming in on an already created video.
Speaker 3: So the judge then decides that he will show the footage,
Speaker 3: but he will not show the footage to the public. Okay,
Speaker 3: So the footage is shown to the court room only,
Speaker 3: and that's when we get all the people coming out
Speaker 3: of the courtroom, all of the influencers and the people
Speaker 3: that TPUSA had show up to the preliminary hearing to
Speaker 3: then come out and say that they saw clear HD
Speaker 3: four K footage of Tyler Robinson firing the shot at
Speaker 3: Charlie Kirk. And literally all you had to do to
Speaker 3: disprove this entire narrative was watch the preliminary hearing. Literally
Speaker 3: watch the end of day one, the beginning of day two,
Speaker 3: and then skip to the end of day five. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I just have a feeling, no matter what is presented,
Speaker 1: what evidence is presented. On the contrary, they have the
Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson guilty narrative so firmly in place to where
Speaker 1: they're not going to let it be any other result.
Speaker 1: They're going to convict Tyler Robinson no matter what.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they are that is the plan. That is an
Speaker 3: ultimate goal and the ultimate plant. But I think it's
Speaker 3: really going to upset a lot of people because the
Speaker 3: only people that I have seen that believes the official
Speaker 3: story of what the FBI is presenting that Tyler Robinson
Speaker 3: got on a roof and with a thirty out six
Speaker 3: and shot Charlie Kirk from approximately one hundred and forty
Speaker 3: yards at a sloped angle and hit him in the
Speaker 3: neck and the bullet didn't go through his neck. There
Speaker 3: was no exit wound on a thirty out six. Literally,
Speaker 3: look up any YouTube video of anyone firing a thirty
Speaker 3: out six and you'll see that the damage is unfathomable. Okay,
Speaker 3: it will literally go through a four inch brick in
Speaker 3: through a cow femer. You're telling me that Charlie's neck
Speaker 3: is stronger than a three inch brick and a cow femer.
Speaker 1: Now I heard the argument that you can adjust the
Speaker 1: amount of gunpowder to have a less of an impact
Speaker 1: or less of an effect when it's hit, which I'm
Speaker 1: sure is true. But how likely is it that Tyler
Speaker 1: Robinson was creating his own bullets?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Bro, Like you're telling me a person that his
Speaker 3: first crime that he ever committed, the first thing they did,
Speaker 3: the biggest crime probably in history since like JFK in
Speaker 3: the version of public assassinations, he committed in broad daylight,
Speaker 3: did it on his first try. Yep, no issues, and
Speaker 3: just essentially got away with it, and then texted Lance
Speaker 3: Twiggs kept confessing to Lance Twigs, and he says in
Speaker 3: the text messages that they presented in court, which the
Speaker 3: text messages.
Speaker 2: Have their own set of problems and their.
Speaker 3: Own set of issue. But he said supposedly to Lance
Speaker 3: Twigs that he wanted to take this to his grave.
Speaker 3: So why are you admitting in tax messages to your
Speaker 3: lover just less than twelve hours after you've done one
Speaker 3: of the biggest political assassinations in modern time. Why are
Speaker 3: you then admitting it? It makes absolutely no sense. But
Speaker 3: here's the deal with the text messages. So there's an
Speaker 3: investigator online. His name is Diligent Denisen. He's on x
Speaker 3: a fantastic investigator. You can go to his page a
Speaker 3: shout at him out several times. He's done a lot
Speaker 3: of work into this. So he went to a place
Speaker 3: called Cowboys Smokehouse in Penguage, Utah, which is approximately three
Speaker 3: hours away from UVU campus, and he interviewed this waiter
Speaker 3: there that said that he saw Tyler Robinson around nine
Speaker 3: pm on September tenth. Okay, And he shows the receipt.
Speaker 3: He posted the receipt online. People are calling the receipt fake,
Speaker 3: but it's one. He has. The guy that he interviewed
Speaker 3: at Cowboys Smokehouse in Penguin, Ohio verified the receipt. He
Speaker 3: blurred out some.
Speaker 2: Of the He blurred out the card number and.
Speaker 3: The waiter's name and stuff like that. But it's a
Speaker 3: very real receipt. People have seen the unreducted version. But
Speaker 3: and it says the individual that was there paid at
Speaker 3: nineven okay pm.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: The text message goes out to Lance Twigs from Tyler
Speaker 3: Robinson at eleven PM, and in this exchange with Lance Twiggs,
Speaker 3: Tyler Robinson says that he's still on UVU campus waiting
Speaker 3: to retrieve his rifle. So how can he be at
Speaker 3: UVU campus waiting to retrieve his rifle when he had
Speaker 3: just paid for his food at nine to forty seven
Speaker 3: at Cowboys Steakhouse three hours away. You're not going to
Speaker 3: get there until around one am in the morning back
Speaker 3: to UVU, So how can you be there anytime between
Speaker 3: eleven pm and midnight trying to find your rifle.
Speaker 1: There was also discrepancies about how the rifle was found.
Speaker 1: Supposedly it was reassembled, and according to the narrative, he
Speaker 1: disassembled it just to reassemble it somewhere else. Is that right?
Speaker 3: That's what they're trying to pass off. But the thing
Speaker 3: is is how did he reassemble it when he left
Speaker 3: the screwdriver on the roof, Because that was a big
Speaker 3: part of the evidence that was presented, right, was that
Speaker 3: they found a screwdriver on the roof of the Lowes building. Okay,
Speaker 3: that had apparently had Tyler's DNA on me. Okay. So,
Speaker 3: but the police officer that found it his body camera
Speaker 3: footage immediately went dead, his body, his buddy that he
Speaker 3: had on as soon as he got to the roof
Speaker 3: of the Lowes building. Okay, And they didn't show the
Speaker 3: screwdriver to the court. They presented it as evidence, but
Speaker 3: they didn't show it to the media. We didn't even
Speaker 3: get to see the screwdriver that was reportedly found on
Speaker 3: the roof of the Lowes building. Well, and another thing,
Speaker 3: there was a gun holster that was found on campus too,
Speaker 3: So it's just like and then there was a bullet
Speaker 3: that was found on another roof, an unshot fire unshot
Speaker 3: bullet that was that they claimed was a discharge bullet
Speaker 3: from loading a gun from an officer that was on
Speaker 3: the roof. Then you have all the craziness with George Zinn,
Speaker 3: the guy that was then arrested. Uh, that said that
Speaker 3: he supposedly killed Charlie Kirk, which I cannot find any
Speaker 3: verifiable evidence saying that he said that he killed Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 3: There's no video, there's no video, there's no audio of
Speaker 3: George Dane ever seen.
Speaker 1: He was the guy that was initially arrested, right, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: The original guy. And uh, but there diligient Dennison also
Speaker 3: interviewed him from jail on and George zen said that
Speaker 3: he worked for TPUSA the year prior in Arizona, going
Speaker 3: door to door knocking trying to get votes for Trump.
Speaker 3: The whole thing is just completely complete insanity. And then
Speaker 3: there was another guy that was arrested for going onto
Speaker 3: the scene that apparently had a was found with some
Speaker 3: kind of rifle on the scene as well. His name
Speaker 3: was Kennington Russell. He was arrested that same day. He
Speaker 3: was wearing like a lab lab coat and lab uniforms,
Speaker 3: so they had they already had two Patsy's, this Kennington
Speaker 3: Russell guy, and then George Zinn and then you know,
Speaker 3: ultimately landed on Tyler Robinson. But they didn't show any
Speaker 3: footage of Tyler Robinson showing up to the police station
Speaker 3: to turn himself in. We saw some back footage of
Speaker 3: him in some kind of interrogation room where she walks
Speaker 3: in and completely turns around, which he's The shirt that
Speaker 3: he was shown in is not even the same shirt
Speaker 3: that he was pictured in at the Dairy Queen at
Speaker 3: around six pm on the tenth. So the whole thing
Speaker 3: is just it's a nightmare. And then they tried to
Speaker 3: run with this entire thing and not thinking that anybody
Speaker 3: was gonna investigat her looking at any of the stuff.
Speaker 3: They thought that they could just lie their way through it,
Speaker 3: like they've done over and over and over and over again.
Speaker 3: You know, we got the money. You guys aren't going
Speaker 3: to figure any of this out because we'll just pay
Speaker 3: these influencers and these people to take our position. But
Speaker 3: people are immediately waking up to that they know that
Speaker 3: this is.
Speaker 2: Not what happened.
Speaker 1: As far as the events of the assassination itself, their
Speaker 1: speculation whether a rifle was even used, and I've seen
Speaker 1: some of the deep dives you've done about the possibility
Speaker 1: of the microphone being used as some kind of projectile explosive.
Speaker 1: Is there anything else you've looked into about that.
Speaker 3: I have looked into the microphone theory a lot. I've
Speaker 3: also looked into which is my next theory. I haven't
Speaker 3: really put it together. Yeah, I haven't done a video
Speaker 3: on it yet. But the thing about the a lot
Speaker 3: of the stuff that doesn't make any sense is the
Speaker 3: crime scene was immediately paved over, was paved over by
Speaker 3: Sunday and into Monday. It was completely done the microphone
Speaker 3: looks like it's been exploded, and it is at the
Speaker 3: bottom of the suv.
Speaker 2: On the floorboard.
Speaker 3: The shirt that Charlie was wearing apparently got destroyed somehow
Speaker 3: and is crumpled up and looks like it's burnt in
Speaker 3: the back of the suv. Some kind of shirt. We
Speaker 3: don't know if it's Charlie's shirt, but based off of
Speaker 3: the photos that Baron Coleman has posted of Charlie Kirk
Speaker 3: being dragged into the hospital, was he looked like he
Speaker 3: already had his shirt off.
Speaker 1: I heard that the first responder had to cut his
Speaker 1: shirt off and threw it aside, and that's why they
Speaker 1: couldn't find his shirt.
Speaker 3: Well, that's not even that wasn't even a first responder.
Speaker 3: That was Brian Harple, that was part of Charlie's security
Speaker 3: team that insisted that they take Charlie to the hospital,
Speaker 3: and they take the long way to the hospital, and
Speaker 3: they didn't have The door to the v was completely
Speaker 3: wide open. Charlie's legs were apparently hanging out of the
Speaker 3: suv as they were driving down the road toward the hospital,
Speaker 3: and Brian Harple claims that whenever they got to the hospital,
Speaker 3: he jumped up on top of Charlie and cut Charlie's
Speaker 3: shirt off with a pair of scissors.
Speaker 1: I ended up getting on top of him and cutting
Speaker 1: the shirt that he had on off, that white freedom shirt,
Speaker 1: and so I cut it off so they could get
Speaker 1: to him.
Speaker 3: But that doesn't add up. I personally believe that the
Speaker 3: cutting of the shirt happened inside of the suv and
Speaker 3: then the shirt was then burned inside of the suv
Speaker 3: because you could look at the look at this crumbled
Speaker 3: up piece of plastic. And Candice Owns was the one
Speaker 3: that brought this to everyone's attention, was like a it
Speaker 3: looks kind of like cardboard, but most shirts nowadays are
Speaker 3: made with at least fifty percent polyester and some form
Speaker 3: of cotton and some other materials. Right, so whenever you
Speaker 3: burn a shirt like that, it turns into this weird
Speaker 3: burnt out type of cardboard. And if you zoomed in
Speaker 3: that photograph that burned up looking cardboard, you can see
Speaker 3: the back of the inside of a.
Speaker 2: T shirt sticker.
Speaker 3: So it's one T shirt. We just can't confirm if
Speaker 3: it's and from Charlie's shirt missing, people just come to
Speaker 3: the conclusion that it's Charlie's shirt because based off of
Speaker 3: the photos of Baron Coleman posted on Acts of apparently
Speaker 3: when they were taking Charlie out of the suv and
Speaker 3: into the hospital, a photo was snapped and you can
Speaker 3: see some kind of weird, strange markings on the right
Speaker 3: side of Charlie's chest where there appears to be some
Speaker 3: kind of red marks or what people are calling burnmarks.
Speaker 3: And people tried to discount this and say that it's
Speaker 3: a that's blood, but it looks like a square burn
Speaker 3: mark right right right on his pack on his chest,
Speaker 3: on on the right side where the microphone set on
Speaker 3: the inside of his shirt. And then the suv was
Speaker 3: completely scrubbed and then they sold the suv. Suv wasn't
Speaker 3: put into evidence. And the other really strange part about
Speaker 3: the entire endeavor is that that FBI wasn't concerned about
Speaker 3: the microphone. They weren't concerned about the vehicle.
Speaker 2: They weren't concerned about his shirt.
Speaker 3: They didn't care about any of that. What they what
Speaker 3: they did care about was his necklace.
Speaker 2: Hm.
Speaker 3: Why did they care so much about Charlie's necklace and
Speaker 3: why did they even know that he had a necklace?
Speaker 3: How did they know, I can wear a necklace under
Speaker 3: my shirt and you would never know that I even
Speaker 3: have a necklace on. Yeah, and that's where he would
Speaker 3: wear it. How did they know about the necklace to
Speaker 3: begin with? And then two why were they so concerned
Speaker 3: about it? Then it turned out one of Charlie's team
Speaker 3: came in and grabbed the necklace out of the suv
Speaker 3: and then gave it to Erica.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Eric is a whole nother story. What I've always
Speaker 1: been baffled by is in an age of cell phones,
Speaker 1: especially at an event where you would think everybody would
Speaker 1: be filming the entire event, there's very few angles that
Speaker 1: are seen from people's cell phone footage. I'm wondering if
Speaker 1: most of it was confiscated at the time.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly what they did with the JFK assassination.
Speaker 3: Tone what you know about the lady across the street
Speaker 3: there film day and then her footage got completely confiscated
Speaker 3: by the FBI. No one's ever seen it. Some parts
Speaker 3: and pieces of it have come out, but not the
Speaker 3: full thing. And yeah, it's very suspicious. The FBI then
Speaker 3: went and confiscated all of the footage at the hospital,
Speaker 3: So we have no footage of Charlie arriving at the hospital.
Speaker 3: They wouldn't let the doctor go back in and try
Speaker 3: to prepare Charlie's body for Erica Kirk to come and
Speaker 3: see him at the hospital. There's a parent nine one
Speaker 3: police scanner recordings that say that no autopsy was performed,
Speaker 3: that the Kirk family that Erica did not want an
Speaker 3: autopsy done. What and then the then the next day
Speaker 3: he's already ready and prepared and in bomb and in
Speaker 3: a casket. Those photos of him in the casket with
Speaker 3: Erica over him, where she's like brushing his hand which
Speaker 3: looks like freaking porcelain mannequin. Yeah, the porcelain mannequin hands.
Speaker 3: I've been to a lot of open caskets, Chris and
Speaker 3: I do not ever recall seeing someone's hands look like
Speaker 3: mannequin hands. Okay, so, but those were taken because I
Speaker 3: raised the question of it. Wasn't something really rubbed.
Speaker 2: Me wrong about the Erica Kirk.
Speaker 3: Posting the video and the photos of Charlie in the casket,
Speaker 3: And I couldn't really understand why I felt uneasy about
Speaker 3: it until around a month ago. I went back because
Speaker 3: I tried to go back and find a lot of
Speaker 3: inconsistencies with what they were saying when it first happened
Speaker 3: and then now to what they're saying. And I found
Speaker 3: in a lot of them, like the governor of Utah
Speaker 3: saying that the assassin got up onto the roof, changed clothes,
Speaker 3: took the shot, changed clothes again on the roof, and
Speaker 3: then jumped down off of That's legitimately what he said happened,
Speaker 3: but we don't see that in any of the footage.
Speaker 3: But regardless, the video and the photos of Charlie Kirk
Speaker 3: in the casket and Eric Kirk over him didn't sit
Speaker 3: right with me. But it didn't sit right with me
Speaker 3: for the same reasons that everybody else was complaining about it. Right.
Speaker 3: People were like, it's disrespectful, why would you do this?
Speaker 3: You're trying to you know, like this is a private moment.
Speaker 3: You know, this shouldn't be captured by media. Why are
Speaker 3: you miked up? And all of that. And I didn't
Speaker 3: really care about any of that, right, but it still
Speaker 3: bugged me. But I couldn't figure out why until I
Speaker 3: went back and looked at the dates those photos and
Speaker 3: that video was posted two days after his assassination. Huh,
Speaker 3: So I made that video. That video went viral, It
Speaker 3: went crazy on as it had like an astronomical amount
Speaker 3: of views that it went viral on Instagram, went viral
Speaker 3: on Facebook, and then Baron Coleman picked it up and
Speaker 3: started digging into it more, and he found out that
Speaker 3: those photos were actually taking the very next day, they
Speaker 3: just weren't posted until two days later. Wow, he was
Speaker 3: already embombed, cast get ready for burial the very next day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that shit doesn't happen. It doesn't happen in any
Speaker 1: other situation. Why would it happen in an extremely high
Speaker 1: level assassination case? That makes zero fucking sense, zero sense to.
Speaker 3: And everyone's like, oh, wow, it's possible, it can be
Speaker 3: gone if you got enough money. Well, just because it's
Speaker 3: possible doesn't mean that it should happen. Y, why did
Speaker 3: it happen like that? If it happened like that, and
Speaker 3: why are they saying that there was no autopsy? So
Speaker 3: wird man.
Speaker 1: Erica Kirk another very odd aspect of this whole situation,
Speaker 1: not only her reaction and some of the strange things
Speaker 1: she said, but the accounts of how her and Charlie
Speaker 1: got together, a bit of their history that she's trying
Speaker 1: to recount doesn't fit together. People are finding aspects left
Speaker 1: and right of their lives that seem to be falsified.
Speaker 1: Huge red flags about Erica. Have you looked into anything
Speaker 1: about her?
Speaker 3: Her background is very difficult to find out anything about her.
Speaker 3: Mom was called Lori Franz. She's a defense and intelligence
Speaker 3: military intelligence contractor for the government, creates a bunch of
Speaker 3: technology for the government. And it's very difficult to find
Speaker 3: history out about Erica. It's almost like it's been hid
Speaker 3: on purpose. We know that she went to a very
Speaker 3: specialized school called the Tessa Rat School. Canvas Ownses put
Speaker 3: that together. She was then part of some kind of
Speaker 3: basketball team, but she didn't really play on it that
Speaker 3: much in high school. She was actually benched for the
Speaker 3: majority of it. Very few photos of her exist from
Speaker 3: when she was young, very few no photos exist of
Speaker 3: her pregnant.
Speaker 2: It's not.
Speaker 3: Completely unbelievable, but it's strange. It's just very difficult to
Speaker 3: figure out about her history. It's like it's been hidden
Speaker 3: on and there may be reasons for that. There's a
Speaker 3: birth certificate that has different dates on it, which is
Speaker 3: kind of odd. She claims that she was raised by
Speaker 3: a single mother, which her stepdad was always in the picture,
Speaker 3: So it's like, were you really raised by a single
Speaker 3: mother when you had a stepdad the entire time. So yeah,
Speaker 3: there's just a lot of really weird and strange stuff
Speaker 3: with her background. She was in that as that one
Speaker 3: documentary talking about it that was heavily propped up with
Speaker 3: a bunch of CIA people talking about the grid down
Speaker 3: situation where if we're hit with an EMP, what's going
Speaker 3: to happen. She was also in a bunch of reality shows.
Speaker 3: It seems like she just wanted money, power, and fame.
Speaker 1: She was also in a pageant that Trump was in
Speaker 1: charge of.
Speaker 3: Right. She also had some ties allegedly to Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 3: in New York, And there's just a lot of weird
Speaker 3: back and then that's exactly what she did. She just
Speaker 3: tried to profit off of the death of Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 3: you know, like, sell as many hats as you can, sell,
Speaker 3: all the shirts, let's do these big giant e Vincent
Speaker 3: That's the thing that doesn't really make any sense with me.
Speaker 3: Chris is like, at this point, I don't really know
Speaker 3: what TPUSA actually does anymore.
Speaker 1: Seems like just an intelligence front of some kind. Didn't
Speaker 1: the co author of Mind Wars with Michael Lokino, isn't
Speaker 1: he on the board of directors of TPUSA. That's a
Speaker 1: huge red flag right there.
Speaker 3: Really big red flag without Charlie Kirk. They I mean,
Speaker 3: what do they really.
Speaker 2: Do, right?
Speaker 3: They just put on halftime performances. Erica does some speaking gigs,
Speaker 3: a Woman's Summit, she writes a book. She also does
Speaker 3: some internet videos, you know, dressed like a freaking undercover
Speaker 3: agent like Joe from You That's out. They're stalking people
Speaker 3: with the brim hat on her. And the Charlie Kirk
Speaker 3: Show still goes on somehow, but should probably just be
Speaker 3: renamed to We Hate Candice Own Show. That's basically what
Speaker 3: the entire thing is about. I really don't know what
Speaker 3: tp USA does now and what their donors are actually supporting.
Speaker 3: I really don't. Right, it feels completely artificially propped up. Yeah,
Speaker 3: they don't have anybody's taking They don't have anyone taking
Speaker 3: Charlie's place on the road right at speaking events, doing debates.
Speaker 3: Right Trump is in office. That was kind of the
Speaker 3: whole goal. Yeah, turning point was to get Trump back
Speaker 3: in the office. He's still in office for another until
Speaker 3: twenty two, in another two years, and of twenty three years.
Speaker 3: So it's like, well, that might be something completely different because.
Speaker 2: He might try and run for a third term.
Speaker 3: Did you see his thing the other day where he
Speaker 3: was like, I'm gonna run. No, I did it twice,
Speaker 3: I'm going to do it again. So we might be
Speaker 3: a tempting to get him for another term. But you know,
Speaker 3: I just don't understand. I don't know what at this
Speaker 3: point what tpusa's purpose is now. I just don't know
Speaker 3: what they do. I don't know what their actual function
Speaker 3: is other than, you know, being the I just don't know.
Speaker 3: And it's a really good question because I don't think
Speaker 3: anybody else really knows either, because Charlie was the central
Speaker 3: theme point. He was the founder of the entire organization
Speaker 3: and the thing that he was doing there longer doing.
Speaker 1: The more you look at that situation, it seems that
Speaker 1: he himself may have been groomed from an early age
Speaker 1: to be in that position, but most likely unknowingly by
Speaker 1: people in his life.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, Charlie was indeed in the gay program, which is
Speaker 3: I have it in my new documentary that will be
Speaker 3: out soon on Amazon prime called psychic agent the gay program,
Speaker 3: and it turns out that he was inside of the
Speaker 3: gay program, and he was more than likely groomed for
Speaker 3: this position of power. Because that's what I believe that
Speaker 3: the gay programs actually are, are grooming people for roles
Speaker 3: in society. So if you get people at a really
Speaker 3: young age, you just put them to the side and
Speaker 3: you give them a special education, you can then effectively
Speaker 3: take them in Shepherd and heard them into the position
Speaker 3: that you want them to be in. So a lot
Speaker 3: of the people that have made it through officially made
Speaker 3: it through all of the gate program stuff. You're probably
Speaker 3: looking at someone that's pretty important music industry people, leader,
Speaker 3: heads of giant corporations, writers for the New York Times,
Speaker 3: and they have all these people programmed on exactly what
Speaker 3: they're supposed to do. So there's really not much of
Speaker 3: a conspiracy there because the people that made it through
Speaker 3: don't care about what they went through because they're successful
Speaker 3: in their job. They don't want to talk about the weird,
Speaker 3: strange shit that they went through and a grade school
Speaker 3: in middle school right because it doesn't matter to them
Speaker 3: because they're making hundreds of thousands of dollars or they're
Speaker 3: a political leader, or they're a famous.
Speaker 2: Actor, or they're.
Speaker 3: This person that's been you know, they're ahead of a corporation,
Speaker 3: or they they're the CEO or XEO or whatever you
Speaker 3: want to call it, and they just don't care. Right.
Speaker 3: But the people that did not make it through normally
Speaker 3: have a lot more problems, and they are the ones
Speaker 3: that turn out to be the ones that actually talk
Speaker 3: about it, right, They're the ones that actually remember what
Speaker 3: they went through.
Speaker 1: They have weirder sub sections, darker sub sections of these
Speaker 1: Gate programs where people are recruited for assassins, some kind
Speaker 1: of psychic abilities, sexual honey pot blackmail. They get really
Speaker 1: dark and it becomes torture and extreme horrendous experimentation at
Speaker 1: certain levels, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: And it doesn't even have to be at at like
Speaker 3: a super high level. It could just be recruitment in
Speaker 3: to the military. Walter Bosley was in the Gate program
Speaker 3: in California. Trey Hudson was in the Gay program. They're
Speaker 3: both in the military. A lot of the people buying
Speaker 3: themselves working for three let organizations and the military were
Speaker 3: probably involved in some sort of strange and weird testing
Speaker 3: whenever they were a kid. Mary Ellen Manson was said
Speaker 3: in an interview, the CIA wanted to recruit him. So
Speaker 3: it's all levels of society. Millions upon millions of kids
Speaker 3: have been through these programs, and the people that remember
Speaker 3: and start to wake up start to question the entire thing.
Speaker 3: And that's what it seems like Charlie was kind of
Speaker 3: going through. At the very end, he was starting to
Speaker 3: come to the conclusion that his entire life was essentially
Speaker 3: a giant Truman Ship.
Speaker 1: Mentioned a bit of JFK crossover. You made a film
Speaker 1: about the jfk assassination JFKX. Have you noticed any other
Speaker 1: profound crossover with the kirk assassination.
Speaker 3: Well, people want to say that the kirk assassination was
Speaker 3: was fake and that he faked. I've seen a lot
Speaker 3: of really wild theories, and I believe that that's being
Speaker 3: pushed on purpose. I believe that they want to make
Speaker 3: the Charlie Kirk assassination like two point zero, and they
Speaker 3: want to take a lot of people down for it,
Speaker 3: like the famous Alice Jones case where he says that
Speaker 3: the entire thing was staged and baked and that everyone
Speaker 3: was crisis actors and the whole family weren't real the
Speaker 3: kids weren't real and all that, and then he ended
Speaker 3: up getting sued for millions and millions of dollars and
Speaker 3: lost as up any info wars. I believe that that's
Speaker 3: what they want to try and do with the Charlie
Speaker 3: Kirk assassination. So if they can get enough people believing
Speaker 3: that the entire thing, because I've seen some I've seen
Speaker 3: some people go as far to say that it was
Speaker 3: like a holographic simulation, that Charlie wasn't even really there,
Speaker 3: that they had holographic simulation technology, and like just a
Speaker 3: bunch of really wild stuff. And there is an agenda
Speaker 3: out there to make people believe that everything is staged
Speaker 3: and everything is fake, in order to make them stop
Speaker 3: asking questions, right, stop looking into it, because the entire
Speaker 3: investigation is essentially over in one foul swoop. When you
Speaker 3: say the entire thing was fake, right, no one's going
Speaker 3: to look into it anymore, No one asks any more
Speaker 3: important questions. All you got to do is blanket hire
Speaker 3: event with it's entirely fake. It wasn't real, it was staged, right,
Speaker 3: That's how you get away from asking any kind of questions.
Speaker 3: But and it's interesting because no one would have been
Speaker 3: saying that if it wasn't for our film JFK X, Right,
Speaker 3: no one would ever have said that that they believed
Speaker 3: the Charlie Kirk assassination was fake if it wasn't for
Speaker 3: a movie right on JFK. But I believe that there's
Speaker 3: way more evidence for a supposed fake assassination on JFK
Speaker 3: than anything else because Officer J. D. Tippett was also
Speaker 3: killed that day and his nickname was JFK. He looked
Speaker 3: identical to JFK. So if anything, that the entire JFK
Speaker 3: thing was some sort of weird occult gas lighting ritual
Speaker 3: to kill someone that looks like JFK is nicknames JFK
Speaker 3: so that way that they can completely get away with
Speaker 3: the entire thing, right. And when you look at the
Speaker 3: autopsy photos of JFK, you see a giant wound to
Speaker 3: the back of JFK's head, But you don't see a
Speaker 3: wound to the back of the head in the zubrutera phone, Right. JD.
Speaker 3: Tippett was shot in the back of the head and
Speaker 3: in the back, and that's what you see JFK. The
Speaker 3: wounds on JFK and autopsy photos are shot into the back,
Speaker 3: into the back of the head, exactly like how JD.
Speaker 3: Tippitt was killed that exact same day, Right, So there's
Speaker 3: a lot more evidence when it comes to the JFK
Speaker 3: thing that makes it more plausible in my eyes than
Speaker 3: anything else. And even the most experienced JFK researchers will
Speaker 3: tell you that they believe that JFK's.
Speaker 1: Body was Unfortunately, just like the JFK assassination, there has
Speaker 1: been no justice for that event, and unfortunately I don't
Speaker 1: see any justice for the Charlie Kirk assassination as well.
Speaker 1: History repeats itself. Even if the circumstances aren't the same,
Speaker 1: the results will most likely be the same. No justice
Speaker 1: for any of the people involved with this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it seems like that they're going to keep
Speaker 3: moving forward into a conviction to go to trial with
Speaker 3: Tyler Robinson and it'll probably be strung out for a
Speaker 3: really long time before we ever get any kind of
Speaker 3: final conviction on it. And that's if he even makes
Speaker 3: it thought far right, But they have nobody else right,
Speaker 3: So if they don't convict him, then it looks like
Speaker 3: the biggest failure on the part of the FBI that
Speaker 3: has been done and the history of any investigation ever,
Speaker 3: So they aren't going to let that happen. They're going
Speaker 3: to have to go through They're gonna have to go
Speaker 3: headfirst and double down on every single thing that they've
Speaker 3: ever said, because it's the only option that they have.
Speaker 3: They have nobody else. There is no other suspect said
Speaker 3: that they've had on that they could possibly pin for
Speaker 3: this entire thing, and because they don't want the real
Speaker 3: person to actually get in trouble for so back to
Speaker 3: one of your questions that you mentioned about the exploding microphone,
Speaker 3: it's a possibility that it could have been the microphone,
Speaker 3: and then there's also a possibility that it could have
Speaker 3: been the necklace.
Speaker 1: I haven't heard this one.
Speaker 3: That's my it's my.
Speaker 1: Exploded, is what you're saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And the explosion from the necklace destroyed the microphone.
Speaker 3: The microphone is on the right side of his body,
Speaker 3: and it's very difficult for even a shape charge to
Speaker 3: explode here and then somehow hit him on the left side.
Speaker 3: It would almost have to take a complete U turn.
Speaker 3: It would have to do some matrix type shit in
Speaker 3: order to turn back around him and the left side
Speaker 3: of the neck. But when you watch the footage, Charlie's
Speaker 3: shirt comes up, his necklace comes up off of the back.
Speaker 3: So if you saw the back footage, his necklace shoots
Speaker 3: out the backside of his shirt. Huh, and his shirt
Speaker 3: flips all the way up. I'm thinking that the necklace
Speaker 3: turned inside.
Speaker 2: Of a shirt.
Speaker 3: It's one of those cross necklaces, right, Yeah, so the
Speaker 3: necklace shoots up, which brings his shirt up. The necklace turns.
Speaker 3: It's the only thing that would be able to swing
Speaker 3: to the left far enough to then explode and hit
Speaker 3: him into the left side of the neck. Right, So
Speaker 3: the necklace pops up. It explodes both ways. It bumbles
Speaker 3: in his shirt, hits him in the side of the neck,
Speaker 3: and then the other charge comes out the right side,
Speaker 3: which would be the left side if we were looking
Speaker 3: at him, hits the microphone and destroys the microphone. No,
Speaker 3: that's just that's just my theory.
Speaker 1: It's possible with the level of technology that our military
Speaker 1: industrial complex has that we'll never know about. I'm sure
Speaker 1: that they have plenty of devices that could explode in
Speaker 1: that manner.
Speaker 3: So you got I mean, that's just my theory. Yeah,
Speaker 3: really have too much proof on it. But it seems
Speaker 3: like from the level that the FBI was concerned about
Speaker 3: the necklace. That's the only thing that makes sense, right.
Speaker 3: If it was a microphone and you knew about the microphone,
Speaker 3: then you would be where's Charlie's microphone?
Speaker 1: It's interesting, man, Anything that we haven't covered about the
Speaker 1: Kirk assassination before we move on, oh.
Speaker 3: Man, not that I can think of off of the
Speaker 3: top of my head. Some people have brought up the
Speaker 3: fact that it might have been some sort of that
Speaker 3: it was a close up shooter, that it was someone
Speaker 3: with a handgun, yeah, or a palm pistol. I'm not
Speaker 3: too sure on that, but that was my first thought
Speaker 3: whenever initially happened, was that the shot, if it was
Speaker 3: a bullet, it was an up close shot with a
Speaker 3: twenty two is originally what I thought that it was,
Speaker 3: because again, at that distance from a rifle, from a
Speaker 3: thirty out six rifle, it's going to basically take Charlie's
Speaker 3: head completely off. There's no way that it doesn't, right,
Speaker 3: And that's kind of what we all reverted back to,
Speaker 3: and what got everybody up in arms again was, you know,
Speaker 3: we kind of went back.
Speaker 2: To the fact after the.
Speaker 3: Preliminary trial of what we had all been talking about
Speaker 3: for nine months prior that thirty odd six can't it
Speaker 3: will leave a exit wound. There's no way that it
Speaker 3: doesn't leave an exit wound, right, So we reverted back
Speaker 3: to that again, and we had to go through that
Speaker 3: entire thing again, you know, showing that and there's been
Speaker 3: Special Forces snipers that have come out recently inside that
Speaker 3: there is absolutely no way this was a bullet from
Speaker 3: a thirty out six And they've killed a lot of
Speaker 3: people with a thirty six. They know what the damage
Speaker 3: looks like.
Speaker 1: And he has bones of steel.
Speaker 3: Man of steel baby.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great research writer, man, I love it. Keep it up.
Speaker 1: We'll have to definitely revisit this as things progress. Before
Speaker 1: I let you go, it's been a while since we've
Speaker 1: actually hung out and gotten together. Compared observations about the
Speaker 1: state of reality, some of the more notable events that
Speaker 1: are surfacing is the emerging surveillance state, flock cameras, implementation
Speaker 1: of data centers, the collection of data. How do you
Speaker 1: feel about the state we're at. Have you noticed anything
Speaker 1: in your immediate area like flock cameras going up, red
Speaker 1: light cameras, any other type of surveillance that's emerging.
Speaker 3: No, I have not. I haven't in this area, but
Speaker 3: I've heard a lot of people talk about the highway
Speaker 3: that goes up into Cheyenne, Wyoming. They're from four Collins
Speaker 3: being heavily put with a bunch of flock cameras on
Speaker 3: the side of the road there in Colorado. It seems
Speaker 3: like it's hitting a lot of more royal war areas
Speaker 3: ahead of heavily populated areas. And you know, we kind
Speaker 3: of knew this was coming with official recognition software, but
Speaker 3: it might be even more deeper than that.
Speaker 2: It might.
Speaker 3: It might even be a data collection on you, not
Speaker 3: just taking photographs of your car or you walking past it.
Speaker 3: It might actually be connecting directly to your phone through
Speaker 3: some sort of bluetooth signal that's radiating off of the
Speaker 3: flow cameras that's then collecting all of the information directly
Speaker 3: off of your phone, So all the conversations that you've had,
Speaker 3: all the text messages that you have your social media account,
Speaker 3: if you have passwords saved onto your phone, notes on
Speaker 3: your phone. It seems like the because I've watched a
Speaker 3: few videos of people getting up close to them and
Speaker 3: they had the software that was and said that a
Speaker 3: lot of these are capturing data from people's phones and
Speaker 3: from their devices.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I even heard a theory recently that they are
Speaker 1: collecting biometrics, especially from those who may have opted into
Speaker 1: the Waxine the Jevity jabs. They may have some kind
Speaker 1: of technology that can transmit biometrics to some of these
Speaker 1: devices that are going out. That then is transferred to
Speaker 1: a data center where we have simulated versions of ourselves,
Speaker 1: where they can run predictions and models and learn all
Speaker 1: about who and what we are as individuals, and add
Speaker 1: a control system based on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that really wouldn't surprise me. I mean they've been
Speaker 3: trying to do that for a really long time. That's
Speaker 3: what the Internet has been all about, is creating these
Speaker 3: digital avatars of everybody inside of a matrix like system,
Speaker 3: a virtual reality system. I mean, that's what Nitanic with
Speaker 3: the Pokemon Go app, that's what they were doing, was
Speaker 3: trying to map the entire freaking world. Yeah, well they are,
Speaker 3: That's what they did. They had everybody out with their
Speaker 3: phones trying to catch Pokemon. All the while they're taking
Speaker 3: video and sending the video of everywhere that everyone has
Speaker 3: been to get into the nooks and crannies, into people's homes,
Speaker 3: into people, all the ways of people, the places that
Speaker 3: are not very accessible to get cameras inside of, and
Speaker 3: then they map the entire thing or some kind of
Speaker 3: VR digital computer simulation program to train AI.
Speaker 1: Models, train AI models. It's it, man, We're in wild times,
Speaker 1: Man Rider. This was great. Thank you so much. You
Speaker 1: mentioned your movie earlier that will be coming out very soon.
Speaker 1: Are there any other projects for you that are in
Speaker 1: the works in the future.
Speaker 3: No big projects right now at the moments of trying
Speaker 3: to get this movie out. Psychic Agent, the Gay Program
Speaker 3: that will be on Amazon Prime soon, and hopefully some
Speaker 3: other streaming platforms as well. I haven't really decided exactly
Speaker 3: what I'm going to do next on the movie front,
Speaker 3: but something always comes to me.
Speaker 1: So the world is your oyster, man, Brady.
Speaker 3: Can be whatever I want it to be. So thanks
Speaker 3: for having me on. If people are interested, check me
Speaker 3: out on YouTube raised by Giants and all podcast platforms
Speaker 3: are forbidden. Knowledge News Network and on social media at
Speaker 3: raised by Giants and instagram At raised by a Giants
Speaker 3: pod and x at raised by a Giants eight. Thank
Speaker 3: you guys very much. Appreciate it. Talk to you soon
Speaker 3: until next time.
Speaker 1: Thank you Ryder. Until next time, everyone, have an excellent evening.
Speaker 1: We'll talk again tomorrow. See y'all do