C (2:03)

Let me double check, guys.

A (2:05)

Yeah, I just want to make sure because I don't see us in the Rumble feed, and I just want to make sure we are. Normally, we would be front page Rumble, and I don't see us on there, so I just want to make sure. Yes, we are on Rumble. We are on Rumble. Okay.

B (2:20)

Okay. Very good.

A (2:22)

Oh, there we are. Okay, Just making sure. Just making sure. Good. We're on Rumble. Yep, we're all good.

B (2:27)

All right, we see you in the chat. Now, Clayton was poking around, but we see you.

A (2:30)

I was kind of buried there, which was weird. Um, anyway, we continue to whittle away at the official FBI narrative that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman fired a shot that killed Charlie Kirk. New video evidence has emerged from an eyewitness in the crowd off to Charlie's right side. If you're looking at it, it would have been Charlie's right side, but camera left in the audience at quite a bit. A little bit of a distance, but not too far with a telephoto lens. Finally, some HD footage that we can discuss here on the show, and it reveals something pretty remarkable. So again, we will show it to you and have a discussion about it. We have a lot of new details that emerged over the past 24 hours that we want to go over today. Joining me now is investigative journalist Ryan Mata. He's been all over this story. Millions of people watching or watching his coverage of this, and we want to kind of walk through this entire new timeline here and. And discuss what we have here. Ryan, welcome back to the show. Great to see you, my friend.

C (3:23)

Always an honor, Clayton, thanks for having me. And Natalie.

A (3:26)

All right, so let's start off. Maybe we can kind of contextualize some of the official story here and what. Where this is sort of falling apart. I mean, we can literally just go, like, right to the roof, Right? And the running on the rooftops.

C (3:41)

Yeah, absolutely, Clayton. So the video you guys are watching here is of the FBI video. Now, this comes directly from the FBI's official YouTube channel, so we know it's legit. It was given to us by the FBI. And if you notice the timestamp there in the top left, when that timestamp started, when the video actually first started there, it was at 12:23.34. So it takes him roughly approximately 14 to 16 seconds to get exactly into that position, which will be 1223 50. Now, if you. When we started to analyze this footage, it was Blake Bednars who just first broke this footage, and he showed. He sent me this video, and he goes, listen. Look at man. He goes, from this CCTV video from where the FBI has shown us here, you could actually see the snipers prone position. So when they first zoomed out on that footage from the. When it very first started, you could actually see the position where Tyler would have quote, unquote, been laying on that roof. And it was Blake who sent me the footage originally. And he goes, hey, man, he goes, check this out in the cafeteria view. So if you switch to the cafeteria view, you can actually see the man running across the roof, right? Really slow motion. You clearly see somebody moving across that roof. Okay, now the question is, when was he running? Now there's another video I sent your team and it's actually, you're going to start to see the crowd here. You're going to see the crowd, and the crowd's going to start to crouch down. Okay, so if we put that into this slow motion feed that I sent you and we scrub back and forth, you're going to see the crowd go up and down, up and down, up and down. Right there. See how it goes? You can see the crowd actually getting ready to sit down. And you move it back.

A (5:04)

And he's already running. And he's already running. If you look at the rooftop, Bingo.

C (5:08)

Right? So then we went out to the outside footage and I said, okay, I'm going to put this in my computer and I'm going to press play at the eight second mark of this random clip I had on my computer. And when you press play and you hear bang. As soon as you press play and then I go, okay, I'm going to stop the video immediately when the crowd actually is fully set down. And it's three seconds, Clayton. So that tells you that from when that shot was fired, whoever was on that roof was in a full sprint within three seconds of Charlie Kirk being shot. That man on the roof was sprinting literally before the people that were outside could even realize that Charlie's been hit. I mean, they. He got shot right in front of them and it takes him two or three seconds to go, oh, crap, he's been hit. And they all start to go all duck down at the same time. And that's how we know exactly when that person was running across the roof. So that was kind of like the first thing we kind of started to discuss when I was talking to you.

B (5:54)

Earlier was like, can I just stop you there? Because this tracks with other independent reporting from Candace Owens. She tracked down the person who had filmed prior to the event saying, look, there's weird. That's a guy on the roof. That's strange. The person that they said they saw was in tactical gear with a different gun. That's what they told Candace Owens. And then the FBI says this guy was in plain clothes, so it would track that. There's a discrepancy between that and then. One other thing that's always bothered me about that official FBI running across the roof is that if people duck immediately after and scream, we've heard the screams in the crowd. Why are the people walking behind that building, walking so casually? They would presumably have heard a scream and commotion just around that corner. So what do you think of those two bits?

C (6:47)

Yeah, I'll start with the. With the screams you're talking about. When the FBI shows us that video, there's just somebody just moseying through the parking lot.

B (6:53)

Yes.

C (6:54)

Like nothing ever happened.

B (6:55)

Right here behind the tree. So look at the trees on your.

A (6:58)

Right, even to the left. If you notice, in the left of that shot, right at the very beginning of that shot, there's just someone casually walking through the parking lot. At the far left of the screen, you can see him, see, just kind of walking along.

B (7:09)

And the people under this major. That looks like a big oak or something, or actually maybe deciduous. Anyway, they. They're not running, even though around the corner in the quad, people are screaming and running. They. They should have by this time got the notice and started running and panicking, too.

C (7:26)

Yeah. So that was 16 seconds, 18 seconds roughly after, or maybe 21 seconds after the shot was fired, that he's actually probably hitting the ground right there. The best explanation I can say for why aren't people. A lot of people go, how many kids are at campus with their headphones in? And they're just. You know, you leave campus, you put your headphones in, you're just going about completely oblivious to everything that's going on around you.

B (7:44)

I'll give you that. Sure.

A (7:46)

And pretty far from the quad, to be honest.

C (7:48)

You know, very far. So at least 145, 150 yards. So. And with the. With the. How that campus was set up and how it's so layered and how the sound could have maybe been, you know, trapped in there. But if that guy was on the roof and fired that shot, you're talking about the firing the bullet and the gun going off maybe 20 yards from you. I don't know. Even with headphones, we heard how loud that sounded up close to Charlie. I don't know if the people in that parking lot, if somebody was on that roof and fired that shot, and you're walking through that parking lot 10 seconds later. I don't know if you would not have been like, you know, what the heck?

A (8:19)

Now, the other video that Natalie was referencing, we showed it here on the show, I think, the day after Charlie was shot, or roughly right in that scene, we showed the video of those individuals. Two individuals pointing to the rooftop and noticing an individual there. That's a different roof line. And according to Candace's reporting, someone wearing tactical gear and a mask with. And they actually witnessed a gunshot from that separate location. So, again, this official FBI, this person.

B (8:49)

Continues to tell Candace Owens that was not the same gun, that it was someone who knew guns and recognized that that was a different gun and that the person they saw was not in plain clothes, but tactical gear.

C (9:02)

Okay, so the first thing I want to point out is where those people were in position. They were kind of parallel to the sparks building. And I was talking to this was Stephen Gardner, and he went back and went back to the scene, and me and him had kind of been sharing info and going back and forth, and he goes, man, you know, these people are telling that Candace, that they seen this man in tactical gear from that position where they were filming is about 535ft from that roof. So then I think, okay, half a football field, roughly. A football field, what, like 900ft? So at the 450 footmark, they'd be a little bit farther than that. When you're in the end zone of a football field, can you look down and tell if somebody's wearing a mask or not? In tactical gear, I do think you can pretty distinctively make out a uniform. And the fact that a football player has a helmet on. So if this person does have a mask on, I would say that Candace's reporting is pretty much holding up. And the most important part about that reporting is the time. So Candace got the actual timestamp. So in that video, when it starts playing, they're going, hey, we just watched this. Is he already in position? We just watched him run across the roof. She said that timestamp on that video is 12:22. So that would have been one minute, maybe two minutes tops, before the shot was fired. So somehow this kid is running across the roof, lays down, gets in position, somehow controls his heartbeat, controls his breathing. I'm no expert sniper. I'm not even a gun guy. But I hear if you're 1cm off with that scope, 1. If that X is 1cm off, you're missing your target. So somehow this guy is in A full sprint runs across the roof. It's about 30 to 45 yards, sprint to get into that position from where we would have jumped on the railing, lays down, gets in position, takes that shot. And the craziest part is within three seconds, somehow magically has that rifle in his hand and wrapped in some type of towel. So he would have had to stand up if it was, quote, unquote, a towel and not a gun bag. He would have somehow had to get that in that gun bag and then get into a full sprint. But this brings us back to my main point, is that we don't have that CCTV footage. If the cops are. If the FBI is the most transparent FBI in all of the Trump administration or the American history, then they would. Why would they release a video three seconds after the shot was fired? If you could just give us maybe two more minutes, you would actually show them getting onto the roof and running across the roof, getting down in position, taking that shot. So my question. And just. Yeah, go ahead, Ken.

A (11:09)

No, no, you're right. So all of those things, why just release the footage? FBI, like, why cut off the first, as we pointed out last week on the show, give us that footage?

B (11:16)

And can I just go back a little bit on that point while we're on the gun? We still don't know how the gun got up there in the first place. They're talking about how he might have hobbled up with it in his pants. We don't have a. That's. None of that makes sense. We don't have a confession, we don't have a bullet. So, yeah, the case against him is.

A (11:31)

Weak and eye candy in our chat says. Yeah, yes, it came over the scanner, the police scanner that he was wearing tactical gear and a mask. So a separate police scanner, confirmation of on camera or, you know, individuals witnessing that. But let's get back to the heart of the matter, Ryan, which is this new video evidence. And I think. So we talked about the inconsistencies on the, The Tyler Robinson piece of this. Now let's get to. I want to show some new footage here. So what we're seeing here is some new footage that was obtained. It was released yesterday.

B (12:03)

Are we going to see the shot? We should warn.

A (12:05)

No, no, we're not. So this is, again, this is some new. What are we seeing here? This is like 10 minutes of footage filmed at a location. And I'm going to show, just so you can see the vantage point. This is never before seen footage until yesterday that was just released. And the person Filming it. I want to show this photo of where this vantage. So this person here with a, I think a pretty strong, like maybe a Panasonic or Sony camera with even like a boom microphone from that location. So can you tell us what we're seeing here and then we'll get to the further close up evidence.

C (12:38)

Yeah. So what you're seeing here is this was a gentleman filming from quite far away. And what you're going to watch here is you're going to watch the microphone. I want your audience to pay attention to that little black dot on the top left of Charlie's shirt because it's really important. That's what we believe. That looks like there's some type of explosion that takes. That happens under his shirt right at the moment of impact.

A (12:58)

Now we should say you're not gonna see blood here. We're gonna stop it right after this thing potentially explodes, basically. So let's roll that footage here. But you're not gonna see the horrible aftermath. We just wanna warn people about that. All right, so this is the footage here. This is a wide shot. Puts the mic down. And now here's a closer version. So, Ryan, what are we seeing here?

C (13:22)

Go ahead. You're gonna watch. I want you to pay attention. Right there. He pauses it. You see it pause. And you almost see like a cloud of smoke. There is some type of explosion. There is something happening under that shirt. And I want you to watch to the right. Do you see that? How like his neck, it was almost like a big gust of wind or something. Something happened under that shirt. And it blows his shirt right off to the right. And Hugh, you'll see it right here. Watch to the right and then watch the left on the mic. So you see the explosion. There it is. See that air pocket? It was almost like some weird air pocket caused his shirt to shoot up like that. And at the same time, what you can't actually see in this video is Charlie Kirk has on that silver necklace. And if your audience remembers, we thought we were watching his earphone, his earpiece get blown out of his ear. And we couldn't make sense of that. Well, according to Candace, is that was his necklace. That was his chain necklace that you've seen actually getting blown off and blowing over his ear. And now I have a chain necklace on, right? I have this gold cross on. How would it be possible? I thought maybe like the bullet went through his neck and you could see it protruding out the back of his spine. So I thought maybe that the force, even though the bullet didn't get throw. It was just such a rapid force in the back of his neck that somehow it snapped the chain. But the chain breaks in the front. So how does the chain break in the front and then go off backwards over my ear? That was the one part I could never figure out. Okay, so we have the chain breaking, we have it blowing off over the back of his head. And at the same time, now we have evidence that's showing some device on Charlie's shirt that looks like it gets detonated. And you see this huge puff of air blow up his shirt, while at the same time you're. That was the first video that we've seen where you could actually see like there was. It looked like a little cloud of smoke, a little cloud of air. I don't know what that was, but it was coming out right from under his shirt exactly where that microphone was.

A (15:09)

Now, John Bray. So John Bray has been analyzing this and let's just put up this post by John. So first of this picture here, John Bray, Based solely on my analysis of the two angles of the events on September 10, I have come to the conclusion that this is the object that struck Charlie Kirk in the neck. Now what is that? Now it could be a DJI microphone or a RODE microphone, which is just magnetically clipped here. I'm just gonna show you some footage I filmed a few minutes ago of my DJI microphone so you can understand what this looks like. So here's a DJI microphone. These are wireless lapel mics. And this uses a magnet. This is a very strong magnet here. It's even hard to pull off. And it just like clips on the shirt. So you would put that on your front of your shirt and just would clip right there to the back. And that microphone would be facing his mout to pick up his speech and, and sort of any sort of ambient noise. But it's a really good, I think, what omnidirectional microphone, Right. You know more about this, Ryan, than I would, right?

C (16:09)

Yep, yep, that's exactly what it is. You're spot on. So in John, John Bray's reporting, he's basically went down and did a breakthrough of how you could basically remove a percentage of the battery from that device. Obviously, if you're a foreign intelligence agency and you have app, you have the ability to create and make all of these devices. We've seen it with the pagers before. He's claiming that you could have removed a percentage of that battery and then you could have put a 2 gram PETN charge and it still would have functioned and had no indication that it had been tampered with. And then there would be an explosive charge inside of that device, which, when detonated, that's what would have either. I know some people are thinking that the magnetic piece went into his throat. I personally don't think so. I think that built into that little device, there was some type of charge that detonated, and that's what we saw. Catch him right there in the throat. That would be my best guess. But, you know, one of the things that me and Clayton were talking about is, you know, we watched the Turning Point team go and tamper with the evidence, and everybody was so focused on specifically the camera right behind him, but there was a camera right in front of him that was literally six, seven, eight feet in front of him at best. I showed it to Clayton in a minute ago in a text message, and it. Where is this footage from Turning Point? I think at this point, we're all left with a lot of questions. We don't know how this would have happened. We don't know if it would have happened. We don't know if that device was anything under his shirt. But the missing footage and the fact that Turning Point employees were going there and removing memory cards from this active crime scene leaves us with a lot of questions. And if we know that they have those memory cards, I think it's. At this point, we should be almost demanding that, you know, this is Charlie's organization. Charlie was the biggest advocate for release the Epstein files. And then when Megyn Kelly's like, oh, the. The pedophile stuff. And Charlie's like, no, I mean, release all of them. Let the public see what these people do. Release it all and give it to the public. So we have an opportunity right here, right now, to say, hey, Turning Point. Like, it's Charlie's legacy. This is his investigation. He would want more than anybody for everybody out here, especially the independent journalists, to have access to this footage.

B (18:04)

Right. Well, those employees have said that the SD cards are in the hands of the FBI, so that maybe went from one questionable source to a even more questionable.

A (18:17)

Oh, good. The FBI.

B (18:18)

Right. So I don't know what to think about that. And then separately, Candace Owens has confirmed, because she's able to talk to people inside Turning Point and the crews and the sound technicians and things like that, that he was not wearing a bulletproof vest and he was not wearing an earpiece. So we can at least rule those things out, because that's something that we had been.

A (18:39)

Well, I was telling Ryan this morning, Ryan and I were talking this morning. I said, I use these DJI mics all the time. There's under no circumstances would I have an earpiece in. There's no evidence that he was wearing a pack on his back, on his pants, anything. So why would you have an earpiece in? So that thing that flies up makes a lot of sense to if that is in fact his necklace.

B (18:58)

But what you're talking about here is born identity level. You know, tampering with everyday objects and weaponizing them. It's almost too unbelievable.

A (19:10)

We'll go to this but like.

B (19:12)

But what, what else? We can't. But everything is unbelievable. So we can even. I mean it's not that crazy, but we can't. There's nothing we can rule out.

C (19:21)

I mean it's not that unbelievable because.

A (19:23)

Israel pulled it off against, was it.

D (19:25)

Iran with the cell phones?

A (19:26)

We know that the everyday devices on a large bunch of people in our chat room are saying, what about the pagers?

B (19:32)

The pagers in Lebanon?

A (19:34)

Yeah, and those pagers were going off in London too. They weren't just like set to Lebanon. It was just, it was all over the world where those pagers went off.

C (19:43)

Yeah. And one more part I want to add to this because people, a lot of people are going, this is too big. There's too many moving parts. There's too many people that would had to have been involved to cover up something like this. So I started doing a little bit of research and somebody sent me a link for Warner Spitz. So it's S P I T Z Werner W E R N E R so Werner Yuri Spritz was born in August, on August 22nd of 1926. He died in 2024. He was a German American forensic pathologist who worked on a number of high profile cases including the assassination of, of President John Kennedy, the Reverend Martin Luther King. He also testified at the trials of Casey Anthony and Phil Spector in 1996, civil case against O.J. simpson. So you mean to tell me that they were able to get that guy to work on every one of those cases? And we know there was a lot of funky stuff going on with jfk, Martin Luther King, Casey Anthony and this guy magically worked on all those cases. So I'm asking here now, where is the coroner? Where are the doctors? Where was the surgeon at? Where were the reports when they received him at the hospital? And who were these people? I think at this point, what's everyone's.

B (20:48)

Connection to this case now?

A (20:49)

No, he's just, he yeah.

B (20:51)

Oh, just. He doesn't have a connection.

C (20:53)

No, I was saying that, well, we have the same doctor that worked on all these other assassinations. It was one doctor that worked on all of these high profile cases. So I'm saying that if people are going, oh no, the doctors would have had to know. The doctors would have had to have been involved. And I'm saying, well, we have past cases where the doctors were involved, because that's what Ian Carroll said to me. He goes, dude, the coroners, they're always involved in this. And I go, yeah, Obama's chef drowned in a puddle of water. And didn't Obama fly in his personal doctor to do the autopsy on that guy?

B (21:19)

Right. I'm also very curious about the caliber of the defense attorney that Tyler Robinson will have because this is a dream case for, you know, a defendant because the government's evidence is so paper thin unless we get a patsy who is the defense attorney. So do we know that yet? I haven't actually looked for myself. I don't mean to put you on the spot.

C (21:41)

No, we haven't yet. I thought he was getting appointed somebody, but I could be wrong. And one other point I want to point out because you guys have been following this for a long time. You guys have been in the media for a really long time. When has there ever been a high profile killer or an assassin or anything on this level where the media wasn't surrounding that person's property? It feels like any time that there's been a high profile case like this, the media is literally camped out on the, on the sidewalks, out in front of these people's homes, just trying to catch an interview with the parents or something like that. I don't know. That's why I kind of wanted to ask you guys about that.

A (22:12)

No, I think I'm very interesting. It's also the same in Butler. I mean, you know, there was a little bit of interaction with the parents from some local. They were basically squashed. And then you didn't see anything, any information about that ever again. And then when, of course they. Matthew Crook's body was mysteriously cremated, or whose ever body was actually cremated that day, we don't exactly know, but. And then wiped clean. There's no more discussions with them at all. So that's a great point. As Matthew or Robert in our chat says, Robert Chatterley in our rumble chat says, bullets do not create enough drag to lift a shirt. A pre charged pneumatic from under the stage would. Or perhaps an explosive device. But Ryan, I think we gotta leave it there. But this is the new evidence today, the new video evidence, as I said to you, or as you said to me, hopefully the turning points, that camera, the information that we have right there, that was trained directly on Charlie. Hopefully we'll, you know, people will be able to. Independent journalists will be able to analyze that footage. We know Candace has been able to see the footage from behind, but we want to see the footage from the front. It would confirm all of this, plus how many other people were in the front 3, 5, 7 rows filming with a 4K iPhone or an Android device or something, getting footage. So over the next few days, we are going to see more and more evidence coming forward. Follow Ryan's great work on X. Ryan, where can people find you on X if they have any questions?

C (23:32)

X at Ryan Madden Media. And please, guys, if you guys are sitting on footage and you don't know who to trust, I will keep your identity secret. If you want to remain hidden, I have no problem with that. If you guys want all the credit in the world, I'll give you all the credit in the world. But please, if you guys have footage that we haven't seen and you think it shows any type of evidence whatsoever, my DMs are open. I'm literally going through every one of them. Thank you.

A (23:50)

Awesome. Thank you. Any more questions?

B (23:53)

A lot of more questions, but I think that's what we got for today.

A (23:56)

Yeah. All right, thanks, Ryan. Great to see you, my friend.

C (23:59)

Thank you all. Have a great day. God bless.

A (24:01)

All right, coming up from one conspiracy to the next, we've got Epstein files. Could the release of these files be imminent? Congressman Thomas Massie moments ago telling redacted that he has the votes and we could see a vote within the next few weeks, third week of October, to release the Epstein files. And at the end of the day, if this happens, guys, I want you to remember there's basically one man responsible for getting these files released at great detriment to him, called a nut job. You know, everything else, That's Congressman Thomas Massie. So we're going to talk about that in moments.

B (24:36)

But first, first we want to tell you about our friends over at Chapter. Because millions of seniors are on the wrong Medicare plan and most don't even know it. In fact, the Department of Justice recently sued three major Medicare brokers for allegedly claiming to be unbiased while secretly steering seniors towards the plans with the biggest kickbacks. That's why we've partnered with Chapter because they do not do that. They work not for the government or big insurance, but for you. They're the only advisors that compare every Medicare plan nationwide to find out what's best for you. They'll even help you if you're hit with wrongful medical bills. That's real advocacy. They're saving the average senior $1,100 per year. And in fact, one of our good friends is one of them called Chapter and is saving a ton going forward. The best part is that this is a free service for our audience. You can review your options in under 20 minutes. It's a free call, so call them at 202-655-5811 to connect with the only Medicare advisor we trust here at redacted. You'll be glad you did. Most people in our audience say they wish they'd called sooner, so call this number on your screen or go to ask chapter.org redacted.

A (25:47)

Maybe we can report this as well as it relates to Charlie Kirk from one of our team here. One of our team members who has a source at the hospital that particular day initially stated that they were expecting a press conference. There was going to be a press conference held at the hospital. Doctors and officials were prepping a statement and a news conference, but then suddenly it was abruptly canceled without any reasoning at all. So add that to the big bucket of information on Charlie Brown.

B (26:17)

Smells fishy. It's a bucket of fish. That's what it is.

A (26:20)

Indeed. All right. Well, Republicans are in full panic mode right now over the imminent release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Congressman Thomas Massie is to blame for these files being imminently released. Last night, Massie at a forum in Kentucky along with Senator Rand Paul. They're touring Kentucky right now speaking about Liberty. He said that he has the Republican signatures to force the House vote on releasing the Epstein files. House Republican leaders oppose Massie's efforts. They don't want these files released. Remember, Charlie Kirk, shortly before he was shot, openly talked about Epstein, that he was an intelligence asset. He asked the question, was it Mossad? Was it MI6? Was it CIA? And he said we should openly release all of these files. Watch. I think the DOJ should immediately move to unseal all the Epstein documents in the Southern District of New York.

B (27:17)

Yeah, everything. Everything except child sexual assault material.

A (27:20)

I think every file should be released to the public the same way as the JFK files. Let the American people decide.

B (27:25)

Put them out there. Because if there's nothing in there, then we can see there's nothing in there.

A (27:29)

Now, Shannon Joy is an independent journalist, commentator, host of the Shannon Joy Show. She's been covering this deeply, talking about why the Uni party hates this. They're scrambling like cockroaches right now and who might be implicated if these files are released. And Shannon joins us here on the show. Great to see you, Shannon. Welcome to the show.

E (27:49)

Hey, no problem. It's great to be with you guys. I'm a big fan, both of you. You guys do some great work.

B (27:54)

So this is great. Ditto.

A (27:56)

Well, thank you so much. Great to have you here. So Congressman Massie a few minutes ago texted me and said he does have the votes, 100%. He's got the votes to do this. Let me just read his text directly. And I asked him, when will this vote happen on the discharge petition? He said probably the third week of October. He said earliest was October 14th. But then House Speaker Mike Johnson basically took two days off the calendar trying to scuttle all of this.

E (28:24)

Second time that happened. Not at all. That's the second time that happened. We remember when they scurried away. They went to early recess earlier this summer because they were terrified of this vote. So this is great news. It's unprecedented. This very rarely happens. That was reported in the Hill. I think only a few times in the past decade that a discharge petition actually moves forward. And I think that the Democrats are freaking out just as much as the Republicans because typically you have a situation in all things Epstein. When the Republicans are in power, they will cover up for the Epstein scandal. And when the Democrats are in power, they will typically cover up for the Epstein scandal. No one really cares about this unless the opposite party is in power this time. I think the pressure from the American people, the pressure from Tom Massie, the willingness of someone from the president's own party standing up and building a coalition with Ro Khanna out of California, and I think just the pressure from Americans in general. I think there was a recent survey of the American people. Over 80% want these files opened. They want them released unredacted for the most part. And so they, you know, I think that they're just running out of rope at this point. And I'll be shocked if this vote ever happens. I am so proud of Tom Massie and. And Rand Paul and Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's very difficult to do this when your political party is in power. Many are saying that these unredacted files could be embarrassing for the President of the United States. They could implicate the President of the United States. But at the very least, the President and the FBI under Cash Patel and the DOJ under Pam Bondi are doing everything they can to cover up for the president's powerful friends. And that points to a lot of billionaires behind both political parties. And that's the biggest. This is where this doesn't pass the smell test for the American people. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. We know that Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of the trafficking of minors. We know that Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of the trafficking of minors. So the traffickers have been convicted. The people who haven't been convicted are the people they were trafficking the minors to, the johns and the clients. And that is where the American people are fed up with this. I think that your last segment about yet another slew of questions about another high profile violent incident with the Charlie Kirk shooting, where we continue to get lies from our intelligence agencies, from our law enforcement agencies, from our presidents, whether it's Democrat or Republican. I think people are just fed up with it. And so that's why you're seeing this pressure. They're going to do everything they can, I believe, to make sure that that vote doesn't happen. We're already seeing the shenanigans from speaker of the House Mike Johnson. And you know, what we really need to do as Americans is just put the pedal to the metal. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, you got to get on the horn with your congressman, with your member of the House of Representatives and tell them they need to get behind this. You are watching. I had Nick Bryant. He is one of probably the foremost experts in the world. He's been reporting on the Epstein scandal for decades. And he said something very profound on my show just a couple days ago. He said, you know, this Epstein issue, the Epstein scandal and the COVID up, they're so afraid of it because this is one of the only issues that could actually unite regular Democrats and Republican citizens across the country. The other aspect here which makes this so important is that many, if you look at the reporting of people like Nick Bryant and Whitney Webb and Derrick Brose, Ryan Christiano over at the Last American Vagabond. The Jeffrey Epstein scandal isn't just about Jeffrey Epstein. We're beginning to understand that he wasn't necessarily a mastermind. He was a plug in. And this network was bigger than honeypot operations. It was bigger than the CIA or Mossad. It was bigger than the sex trafficking, the coercion and the blackmail operation. Jeffrey Epstein was tied to money laundering. He was tied to weapons trafficking, human trafficking, drug trafficking. And so this is A case that has wide scale global implications. It looks like there's collaboration between intelligence agencies across the globe. And it's the biggest story, I believe in the world today. And that's why we have to continue to press on this. So that's really what I've been able to find. But I appreciate you guys having us on or me on to talk about this because it's incredibly important.

B (33:28)

But let's sort of play out the imaginary fallout that could fall out of both parties because we know that the Obama Department of Justice protected Jeffrey Epstein. We know that the Bush Department of Justice protected Jeffrey Epstein. We know that Bill Barr was connected to Jeffrey Epstein through familial connections. That was the Trump Department of Justice. Trump won. We know that the Biden Department of Justice. So the fallout would be bipartisan, as you say, uniparty. And now we have Cash Patel testifying to Congress that Epstein only ever traffic people to himself. So what would happen to these institutions if we could get a clear glimpse into the depths of their line, do you think? And again, this is fantasy, but let's play it out.

A (34:15)

Maybe they'll burn down.

E (34:18)

That's why this is such an important case. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, the reason I got interested in this case 10 years ago, it started with the Miami Herald reporting on the original sweetheart deal that was cut by Alex Acosta, who was then elevated to cabinet level position by Donald Trump, if you guys recall. But what surprised me when they flew in order to negotiate that sweetheart deal, there was a team of attorneys that were flown down to Florida to kind of batten down the hatches for Jeffrey Epstein and negotiate this extraordinary outrageous sweetheart deal. And one of the attorneys was Ken Starr and the other attorney was Alan Dershowitz. And that didn't make sense to me at the time. I'm like, well, Ken Starr is supposed to be the Republican attorney. Alan Dershowitz is the guy who protects all the Democrats. Like, what is so horrifying about Jeffrey Epstein and all of this that they need to bring in a team, like almost a dozen attorneys to come in and just make this thing go away. I think that this case gets to the heart of the criminal enterprise that is in existence within our federal government. I think it gets to the heart of the bipartisan collaboration to fleece the American people, to lie to us continually about everything and to move, move us through this false paradigm of a two party political system and false choices regarding our elections every year. I think it just cracks everything open. And so I don't know what will happen. I think that's why they fear it, and I think that's why they're doing everything they can to keep a cover, a lid on it. But it just goes to show, though, how brave Massie is and how courageous he is for doing this. You can almost tell in some of the statements that he's made and the interviews that he's done that he knows how important this is and he knows how dangerous it is. And I just commend him for what he's been doing. And I feel like it's my role as a journalist to just push this out and support him in any way I can. And I hope more people will do that as well.

A (36:24)

Yeah, likewise. And I think you're right about that. Like, he knows and he's unafraid. Just watch when he told CNN just the other day about. And he names Trump. I mean, watch this.

D (36:39)

I believe that Trump is trying to protect rich and powerful people who are.

A (36:44)

His friends, and that is why this material is not getting released. So that's. He doesn't pull any punches there, that it's President Trump trying to protect his rich and powerful friends.

B (36:56)

Yeah.

E (36:57)

He's named the names of billionaire backers as well. These are people who prefer to be in the shadows. I think that he's. I mean, he's named well over half a dozen by name. And I mean, it's extraordinary to watch. It's extraordinary to watch. And so what is, you know, what is in these files? I don't know. I just feel like this exercise is important for us as a nation. Like, I want something that I can link arms with Democrats on and say, this is an important thing, you know, outside of the circus that is in Washington, D.C. and all the lies that they tell us. Like, it's this one moment where we all know, like, the gaslighting is extraordinary. I can't believe that they're even trying to get away with it. Cash Patel, the Empty Binders with Pam Bondi. It shows how much disdain and disrespect they have for their own base, their own Republican and conservative base who have been ginned up and hype up, hyped up. I mean, how many times did Cash Patel himself talk about releasing the files? How many times did Trump talk about releasing the files? I mean, this was the fodder of conservative media for a decade. I mean, going back to Lolita Express and Sean Hannity, every other show, it was about Jeffrey Epstein and what a villain he was and getting to the bottom of all of this. So for them to yank the rug out from underneath their base in such a violent way, I think they overstepped. And I think that their grasp on this story is. Is tenuous at best. And so we just gotta keep an eye on it and keep pressing. Right.

A (38:36)

I think you're right. I think even when President Trump attacked Thomas Massie in those tweets and the ratio where people in the comments were like, Mr. President, wrong. Wrong move here. Like, we got Thomas Massie's back in all of this. So, wow, to see the President of the United States ratioed by his own, like, support base. I think you're right about that. Shannon Joy, host of the Shannon Joy Show. Great to have you on the show for the first time. Can't believe we haven't had you on before. Thank you so much for this. And fingers crossed. Fingers crossed. Three weeks a vote. We'll see if that holds true.

B (39:09)

We'll see.

A (39:10)

Thanks, Shannon.

E (39:11)

Thank you guys so much.

A (39:13)

Thanks. Appreciate it.

B (39:14)

All right, well, coming up, we're gonna talk about. Oh, this new liberal sex education. It's gonna make you barf, but, yeah, I said barf. But you're gonna stick around. Now, that's not a good tease. Clayton's gonna lecture me about that later, and he's like, you're gonna lose our audience when you talk about this gross stuff. I understand that. I'm gonna do it anyway because I'm a parent, and I don't wanna see this stuff rear its head into an American education. And it will, because we kind of missed it when it all got started. So stick around. You're gonna see how liberals are advocating for childhood sexual pleasure. I said that. It's gross. Don't leave.

A (39:54)

Also, also, we're gonna talk about the drones over Charlie Kirk's murder. Why were there drones there? We have a guest to dissect all of that drone footage and what we now know about some of those aircraft that might have been hovering over and coordinating, who knows, reconnaissance intelligence. We don't exactly know, but our next guest has a pretty good beat on that. We're gonna talk about that as well.

B (40:20)

But first, well, we wanna tell you about our friends at Lear Capital, because if you have not been investing in prec. I mean, I don't want to say we told you so, but, you guys, it is hitting an all time high. Why? Because the Federal Reserve has just weakened the dollar again by lowering interest rates. Every time they do that, the US Dollar takes a hit. No surprise. That's why advisors always say Savers are losers because you're saving something that politicians devalue. But precious metals have hit all time highs. In the meantime, if your family's future is tied solely to the US dollar, that's a problem. Inflation is eroding your savings day by day. And history shows that wars, crisis, reckless spending only accelerates that trend because it is stealing from the American people by taking dollars out of their pockets and making their dollars worth less. That's reality. History tells this. There's no need to challenge that. That's why gold and silver are rising so fast. And in fact, Goldman Sachs is already predicting gold could hit around $100 per ounce. Right now it's, what is it? 37 I think I saw today. Yeah, 3700. That's wild. We've been talking about this to you for years. It was hovering around 2000 when we started. So hedge your bets. Make your good investments by looking into metals. Central banks, billionaires, institutional investors, they're not waiting. So follow their lead. We again started investing years ago and we are, I mean, I knew it was going to do well. I didn't know it was going to do this well. So it's not too late.

A (41:53)

And someone in our chair was like, oh, you know, gold is expensive. Well, no, if you have a US dollar, you can, you can convert that US dollar to gold. So if you have US dollar savings, it doesn't have to, you don't have to buy an ounce of gold. You can convert what you've got into precious metals to protect yourself because if you've got US Dollars sitting in a bank account, it's losing value. So I just wanted to point out what a rumble viewer was saying there.

B (42:16)

That is true. So now in fact Lear Capital can teach you that you don't have to have the, the actual amount to buy one bar to put it in your house. There are several ways to invest in metals and let them show you. If you call this number on your screen, you will get a real person answer the phone and they're literally just waiting for you to ask questions. They are sitting there at your service. It's 800-613-3557 or go to learedacted.com you can receive up to $15,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. And again, they can teach you if you only have an investment account, a retirement account, if you only have a little bit, they can teach you. They'll give you a buffet of options that work for you. So go to learedacted.com or call them at 800-613-3557. Well, here is your warning about where liberal sex education is going. A new study in a major academic sociology journal says that children should not be stereotyped as asexual and innocent. In fact, they say young children should be empowered to pursue sexual pleasure. Now who are we talking about here? Prepubescent children. They say it's wrong.

A (43:30)

Like six year olds.

B (43:31)

That means before puberty. Puberty starts at eight, right? First, first, earliest, usually eight. About between nine and ten for boys. So this was published by a peer reviewed academic journal, one of the largest in sociology. One of the authors is a professor of education. This is what they think education is. Both of them are from African universities. This prefer perverted paper argues that it is wrong to protect children from sexual pleasure when adults warn kids about predators. You shouldn't do that. You shouldn't warn kids about predators because you are impinging on their sexual pleasure. That this is. Again, look at here. They're talking about pre adolescence. Here they say that they want to disrupt the narrative about sexual pleasure and pre adolescent children. They say if you think that children are innocent and should be protected. Well, the reason you think that is colonialism. Take a look here. This is an old colonial belief. They say it's not a natural construction. This idea of childhood sexual innocence. That's a colonial fiction. I know, I'm dying to. Right?

A (44:43)

What?

B (44:44)

I'm dying. Yes, I, I mean when I, I almost fell out of my chair. You should be too. Pick yourself back up off the floor. I'm going to show you a few more things. They say children already express the desire for sexual pleasure because they do this. They have crushes, they write love notes, they play chase. So they are taking these childhood rituals and extrapolating that this means that children under the age of 8 are hankering for sexual pleasure because they get a crush on a boy or, or what have you. Okay, that is crazy. They say they want to invert sex ed. That means stop leading with the danger when you tell kids about sex. Instead, they should teach them that sexual pleasure is something that we should seek. And in order to do this they need to refer to the literature on queer theory and the, the likes. Now we should be clear. Even though this comes from African universities, this is not normal African values. Many African tribes had rituals about protecting childhood sexuality and protecting children. This is an academic experiment that clashes with Africa's own child protection laws. This is not what any rational parent would want. I would hope that this woman you may have seen this woman go viral over the summer. She's a Namibian first grade teacher. I think that she is more indicative of African values. She went viral. You may have seen this. For teaching her class about body safety through this very catchy song.

A (46:22)

These are my private parts, private parts, private parts these are my private parts no one should touch them no one should squeeze them and if you touch my private part Private part, private part and if you touch my private part I will tell my mother I will tell my father I will tell my teacher. Yes.

B (46:48)

Okay. Yes. To that lady.

A (46:49)

I'm starting singing that.

B (46:51)

I've seen many memes of, you know, wives singing this when their husband comes in at night looking amorous. Have you seen those? No.

A (46:59)

If I hear that. If I hear that song when I come into the bedroom, I'm moving out.

B (47:04)

Okay. Anyway, that's. That was an aside. This has been memed several times. I think that lady has it right about childhood sexuality. I think these academics should be arrested for saying this about childhood sexuality. Can you imagine? They submitted this to a peer reviewed academic journal and the journal published it. So I think we should start looking at sociological associations and saying, what the heck are you doing? If you weren't already convinced that what passes for liberal education is immoral indoctrination, read this paper and tell me otherwise. Now I want to remind you that none of this just drops out of the sky. We have been groomed for this. In academia. Much of modern sex research Orthodoxy traces to Dr. Alfred Kinsey. He's the founder of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University. He helped to destigmatize nearly every sexual appetite and turned prurience into academia, giving liberal students license for the sexual revolution. From his research stems modern day sex education. The more you learn about him, the more scared you will be and the more it will feel natural that we now have demonic papers like this. He taught that sexuality is not an appetite to be curbed. He believed that humans were pansexuals looking for sexual encounters with anything and everything. He practiced what he preached. I'm going to tell you what he did. It's disturbing. If you don't want to hear this, plug your ears for about 30 seconds. He was a true masochist. He would insert things into his phallus such as toothbrushes, straws, other pens. He circumcised himself with a pocket knife. He tied himself to the ceiling by his scrotum. He landed himself in the hospital for traumatizing his genitals. That took months to recover from and yet he is regarded as the first father of sexology. And no one ever stopped this pervert, so thus, here we are.

A (49:09)

Sounds like a great guy.

B (49:10)

Yeah. Do your own research on Albert Kinsey. You will want to just walk into.

A (49:14)

The Ocean, as Norm MacDonald says. Man, that Albert Kinsey sounds like a real jerk.

B (49:19)

I would say he's also the father of trans ideology. Let's leave that for a second. Okay. So anyway, nevertheless, we're here. Children's pleasure flame framed as a research imperative while traditional safeguards are treated as oppression. Now, thankfully, I'm going to leave you with this silver lining. Is the chat freaking out? I'm sorry. I told you. I warned you.

A (49:43)

Wait, with that? You didn't already get to the most disturbing part?

B (49:46)

No, no, I'm going to leave you with a silver lining. With a good. No, no. We're done with the gross stuff.

C (49:50)

Thank you.

B (49:50)

Sort of. Okay. There are signs that society is waking up and pushing back against pervert led research and organizations. Recently, the Protasia Prostasia foundation announced that it would shut down. This was a California organization that argued on behalf of normalizing pedophilia. What they said they wanted to do was research and discuss child sex abuse and sort of shrink down the definition of that so that what they were doing was accepted, excluded from what was illegal. They are advocates for Maps Minor attracted people. They said in a statement they were shutting down because in 2018 they were free to operate in valid society. They were sort of pushing themselves into LGBTQ organizations, treating their condition as if. As if it was something to be accepted through tolerance. Well, now, they say the climate has shifted. Movements across the political spectrum have hardened the discourse. They say they've just been shoved out of polite society and their mission has become increasingly contentious. I say that is good. We are rejecting perverts in normal society. We see you. You belong in jail. So let me know what you think of this. I mean, I don't know what to do about it. I'm prone to write the journal that published this, but definitely you need to watch your children's education and let me know what you think of it. And I'm sorry we had to do it.

A (51:28)

No. Good. I am glad you. Otherwise, if we don't shine a light on it, this is how insidious this stuff is. I mean, we've seen it over the decades, and this is absolutely how it just grows and grows and grows, and then suddenly our kids.

B (51:40)

Our editor, Graham, just put in our. In our chat. Chat. Wood chipper.

A (51:44)

Yeah, exactly.

B (51:45)

Yeah.

A (51:45)

Get out the. Yeah, get out the Fargo wood chipper.

B (51:48)

It's an evil world, you guys, but we are watching it. We, we have to see it. We can't let these a holes and you know, criminals operate in the shadows outside in.

A (51:55)

In our YouTube chat says make perverts criminals again. I'm going to get. Yeah. Mpca. What is, what does MPCA stand for? I'll walk around with a MPCA hat. Okay. Make perverts criminals again. People can get behind that. I certainly appreciate that. Some people in the chat were asking if they have tips on news stories, where can they send them? I believe, I mean, I'm checking with our team. I'm hoping we have our tips line set up tipsodacted.inc if for some reason that email bounces back to you, you can always just send it to me directly. Claytondacted.inc you can email me and we'll try to get it. Make sure, just put like news tip and maybe in the subject line or something, something like that. If you've got some information or footage or things you want to share with us here at Redacted. So, but we'll make sure, we'll check on that inbox and make sure you have access to that for tips@redacted.inc as well. All right, coming up, we are going to talk about the drones over Charlie Kirk's murder. Were there drones? We're going to show you the video evidence of that and discuss it with the man who discovered potential drones over Charlie Kirk's murder. Why were they there? What were they doing? Reconnaissance, intelligence gathering, coordination for the murder. We'd like to know, and we're going to ask him when we come back. But first, you know, I honestly couldn't do this job every day if it wasn't for ExpressVPN. That's not an exaggeration. Every single day that I need to check websites, read reports, access sources from around the world, I need to use ExpressVPN because the truth is many of those websites are censored. This just happened to be. In fact, I was in the uk, I was in Scotland, and I had to jump on a couple of different websites. I couldn't. They were blocked. And without ExpressVPN, I would have been completely cut off, unable to access different websites while I was there. So here's how it works. ExpressVPN lets you change your online location. Instead of being stuck with the version of the Internet that your government wants you to see, you can connect through one of ExpressVPN's secure servers in another country. That means if a site is blocked in the uk, I can instantly connect through a US server and bam, it's wide open. Same thing if you want to access more shows or streaming services, you're no longer limited to what's available in your country. It's not just about censorship. ExpressVPN also encrypts your Internet connection so your personal data is secure. Not hackers, not corporations, not even Internet providers can track what you're doing. It's about privacy. It's about online freedom. So don't wait until you run into some kind of a wall like I have. Take back control of your Internet today. Find out how you can get up to 4, 4 months free by clicking the link in the description box below or just scanning the QR code that's right on your screen. Or go to expressvpn.com redacted Again, find out how you can get up to 4 months free by clicking that link in the description or scanning that QR code on the screen. Visit expressvpn.com redacted were there drones over Charlie Kirk's murder at Utah Valley University? That's certainly what our next guest believes, given the footage that he has analyzed frame by frame and is exposing. Also the fact that there might have been a Hades aircraft circling over Utah Valley University or nearby, similar to what we saw in Butler, Pennsylvania, when the assassination attempt of President Trump. A lot of similarities to the drones to the Hades aircraft in Butler, Pennsylvania, and over Charlie Kirk's murder. Jason Goodman joins us now. He is the host of Crowdsource the Truth. He does a great job on social media, gathering up, using the millions of people who are able to come together and crowdsource information and be able to provide this information. Jason, finally welcome to the show. Glad to have you here.

D (55:35)

Thanks for having me on. Clayton, good to see you.

A (55:38)

My pleasure. So you first kind of came into my radar. I mean, I've been following your work for a while, but you really came on my radar recently with this, with a lot of the drone information that you were finding. And so I guess my question is, why would there be drones over Utah Valley University? And do you think that the footage you found conclusively shows that there might have been multiple drones there that day?

D (56:02)

I think it does. But let me just correct one thing. We haven't yet found a Hades aircraft in Butler. The way I initially came to understand that there might have been drones or there were. Obviously they've admitted it now in Butler was, I had filed a right to no request with the Beaver county esu. That's the multi county SWAT team that responded to the incident and had provided Senator Chuck Grassley with a heavily redacted report. When I filed my right to know request, I believe the police made a mistake because they sent me an unredacted report. And in that, it included the names and phone numbers of basically all the federal agents who were involved. And I got the name of this guy. Rafael. Eduardo Castro. Sorry. And Castro was the counter UAS operator on the list. So I called him up and we had this brief little phone call here. Eduardo? Eduardo, is that you? Can you hear me? Is that Eduardo?

A (57:09)

Who's speaking?

D (57:10)

It's Jason.

C (57:11)

How are you, man?

A (57:13)

I'm sorry, too.

D (57:14)

It's Jason. I wanted to ask you about the drone you were flying in Butler, Pennsylvania. Was it an Andeville counter UAS drone? And why has your name been hidden?

C (57:28)

Oh, I'm sorry.

A (57:29)

Who do you work for?

D (57:31)

I don't work for anybody. This is Jason. I work for myself. You are the drone operator? The counter UAS drone operator. Right. Is this Special Agent Eduardo Castro? Have I reached. Have I reached Eduardo Castro? I don't work for anyone. I have a show called Crowdsource the Truth. You were the drone operator during the Donald Trump assassination attempt, right? What was the function of the drone you were flying?

A (57:58)

Sir, there's a government phone number for official business only.

D (58:01)

Do not call this number again. So he didn't sound well pleased. Yeah, yeah, he didn't sound too pleased to hear from me and see Clayton. I never heard of Anduril before I saw that this guy's company, I found him on LinkedIn and I found an article that said that his company was testing out Andarill drones. I even mispronounced it in the phone call. So subsequent to that, this was supposed to September 2024. We hadn't heard any official testimony in Congress about Secret Service having drones or whatever. This guy has since been, I believe, interviewed by various committees in Congress, and he didn't say anything about a counter UAS drone. He said he didn't have a network cable and couldn't make the thing work. I don't believe what he told Congress. He seemed very nervous when I was asking him about flying a drone. So interestingly, when I started talking about that on Twitter, the founder of Anduril, which is like a $30 billion defense contractor, started commenting on all my tweets rather frantically in a way that a lot of people find suspicious. Now, we've Never proven that there were drones in Butler. But why is a counter UAS operator listed on the official police call sheet? His name was redacted until I spoke about him. Nobody heard about this guy. And the founder of Anduril is all upset that I'm talking about it. I think if I was not onto something, he might not care. So flash forward.

A (59:29)

So you see similarities now with that, with Butler and what we saw over Charlie Kirk's event, Right.

D (59:36)

In terms of the items that are flying around, I definitely see similarities. And so what happened was Charlie Kirk was murdered. And I went to YouTube and X and I was looking for footage and I downloaded Adam Bartholomew, Bartholomew's footage from his Life is Driving YouTube account. And I noticed a bunch of things, people were telling me, hey, you know, people are seeing drones in the sky. So I noticed that Adam's live stream had cut out. He was live streaming for like 19 minutes. And then suddenly he's talking to these guys on the roof. And one second before the shot is fired at Charlie Kirk on his live stream, it completely cuts. Now luckily he was recording. This is just an insect flying by. I went through and magnified each of these things. Sorry, that one's an eagle. And you can see it's flapping its wings. It's back there over the valley. Bunch of birds diving on a lake or whatever it is. Here's a bird going behind this tree. Video compression causes us to lose it in the mountain. Then it comes out in that dark area under the building. That's a bird we see, see it flapping its wings and it flies into the tree. That's what birds do. Drones don't fly into trees. Drones crash in trees. So I went through here and I analyzed all of these items. There's an insect. You see it? I slowed it down. You see the wings flapping, the segmented body moving around. This is not a drone, this is a wasp or something flying over these kids heads. And so I went through, I didn't just say every dot was a drone. And when we found something that did not behave like a bird or an insect, I said, well now wait a minute, the gunfire has just happened. I think birds generally fly away from gunfire and chaotic human activity. But yet right after that shot we have this thing show up which flies into the frame any second here. And remember that jet is doing isr. That's intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. So maybe it's gathering intelligence about the site. Now they've done something. And this thing comes and does an orbital over the crowd. I don't see any flapping. I see a little bit of image compression around the sides of it, but it does this really smooth orbital right over the crowd. Why would a bird be interested in this chaotic human activity? That's a reconnaissance drone, I think. And then it flies away. And then we have this thing. Sorry. This is just the same thing, slow motion, so people can evaluate it. But we get a few things flying here. The next thing that shows up is another object that's kind of far away. So it's hard to tell exactly what it is. But as it gets closer to us, you can see it's emitting smoke. Look at that smoke trail, Clayton. That's not a bird. And that's not compression artifacts. That to me is either a lithium polymer powered electric drone that's having an imminent failure and emitting smoke. Those batteries are very volatile and catch on fire easily. Or it's a gasoline electric hybrid drone and it's burning gas. Then we have this fast moving thing. In the first frame you can see it looks like it's got wings. And it zips vertically up only in about five frames of video. So that's like 1/6 of a second. It shoots across the sky really, really quickly. And here's another thing, moving quickly up, horizontally up. Now, while it's true, certain types of birds, falcons and stuff like that, they can dive very, very quickly, but I don't think that they move upward like that horizontally. It's weird, right?

A (63:15)

No. So, I mean, I have a lot of questions about these images. I mean, certainly you can clearly see the birds in the early images. You can. Then you to me, looks like drones in the other images. I've examined a lot of drone footage over the year and maybe you can explain to our audience like you're not just some guy off the street. This has been your career. You've worked on major motion pictures in Hollywood and visual effects. So you understand artifacting and all of that. Can you just briefly tell our audience so they have a little background?

D (63:42)

Yeah. I've been in digital imaging for the past 43 years. Forty years, since I was a kid. First version of Photoshop I ever used used was 1.07. And my career before I became a journalist and started crowdsource. The truth, I was a visual effects cinematographer. Specialized in stereoscopic 3D. So I've invented camera systems and optical systems that became industry standards. I've worked on the Amazing Spider Man. I've worked on X Men, all kinds of major Hollywood feature films and visual effects shots. And people could See, I tracked all of that, these items, magnified them. That was all done in complicated software. I didn't change anything about the images. I didn't use AI. I didn't use any kind of optical flow to slow them down. Anytime I slowed it down, I was just reproducing the exact original frames. And also when people who watch Crowdsource the Truth were telling me, hey, viewers are finding drones in the footage. I contacted Adam Bartholomew, the guy who created the Life is Driving YouTube channel, and shot that footage. And I spoke to him on the phone. I asked him what happened with your live stream, how it cut out and everything. And this is an interesting part, Clayton, because this really supports what I'm saying. There are some people who see drones and they say, oh, drones, Israel must have done it, right? Charlie Kirk got shot by a drone. I don't have any evidence about whether either of those things did or didn't happen. Both are possible right now. My evidence just shows the drones. What we know is drones are involved in ISR intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. Everybody knows drones fly around with cameras, radio transmitters, radio receivers. They do that all the time, for many, many years.

A (65:33)

So do you believe that there's footage somewhere like these ISR drones? There's probably footage that we don't know about. They were recording.

D (65:40)

I think they were doing electronic warfare because I haven't seen any drones that can reliably shoot a gun. But when Adam Bartholomew's livestream cut out, I believe he was subject to a Bluetooth low energy exploit. There is an an IT security company called Oligo which not long ago published this report about a known zero day exploit in Apple's Bluetooth stack. They've called it airborne. It's a wormable zero click remote code execution exploit that. Now there's been an update since this. There was an update to iOS a few days after September 10th, but this exploit was still possible to execute against an iOS device on September 10th. And what this means is if you have Bluetooth on, on your iPhone, or your iPad, or any iOS device, which Adam Bartholomew was using an iPad, and he was using iOS devices to record all of this, a Bluetooth low energy attack can overwhelm the device with Bluetooth requests and cause it to crash or do all kinds of unexpected things. So this is called an airborne attack. And ironically, I believe that type of Bluetooth exploit was launched from one of these drone aircraft to stop anyone from live streaming or recording the event. But Adam Bartholomew outsmarted them because he had his remote cameras which were connected through WI fi and Bluetooth. He also had them connected by a USB wire. He had a home network set up in his backpack. He had triple redundancy on these cameras and he recorded it to his iPad. That's the file that I got from him. And that file is something like eight times the data rate of what was uploaded to YouTube. That's what allowed me to go in there and really magnify the files. Now, here's one more important thing, Clay, because I know that you and Natalie and the crew at Redacted, you guys cover all kinds of stories that the mainstream media wants to search, suppress and ignore and try to muddy the waters and confuse people. And I don't want to disparage anyone, but I do need to point out that there are some people who have made the claim, in fact directly to you, that they used artificial intelligence to identify drones. And I say there is no way at all that that was done. ChatGPT cannot take in 1 gigabyte video files, it cannot take in YouTube links, and it can only analyze 10 individual files at a time. So for someone to analyze that entire 1 hour and 7 minute video, they would first have to convert it into 124,000 individual video frames, analyze them 10 at a time, create some sort of program that could aggregate the ChatGPT analysis. And I'm not saying that can't be done, but it's not something that an individual could do in a weekend. You'd need to Python scripts and custom code and a real lot of file management capability. So maybe Palmer Luckey has the ability to do that. Somebody like Elon Musk could probably do that. But I don't believe that an individual insurance salesman sitting in an office with a few computers could put that together. It's also important to note that I am the person who initially contacted Adam Bartholomew and identified that he had this larger, higher data rate file that allowed me to blow up all those things and differentiate between which dot is an eagle, which dot is a wasp, and which dot is likely neither of those two and behaves like a man made object, like a drone. So the message is, I believe drones were there conducting electronic warfare against opponents. Anyone who might record a voice version of the event that was not under the control of whoever did this, stop Adam Bartholomew from recording it. And when Adam Bartholomew thwarted that and his video got out, they became very agitated and launched a disinformation campaign to confuse your viewers, to disparage me, to disparage my work, and to create this sensation that there's 25 drones out there. And then later they would come along and say, oh, there's not drones. They're insects and birds. None of these things are drones. It's very important that people understand that there are three or four drones and everything else I see is an insect or a bird.

A (70:15)

No. Thank you for saying that. And that's why I wanted to hear your side of this story and with your work. That's why I invited you on the show. Absolutely. So three to four. Maybe three to four drones, possibly in the footage. And I've gone through the footage as well, and that's what it appears to me. But, you know, I'm. I'm nowhere near your level of expertise with visual effects. So that's. That's the Charlie Kirk assassination. Jason, I'll get you out of here on the. On. On this because we are running out of time as it relates to Butler. Where do we stand with any information regarding drones over Butler and the assassination attempt on President President Trump?

D (70:55)

So I really. I'm not going to say that I've exhausted all avenues, but I have spent a lot of time doing legal work, and I still have an open lawsuit against the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's Office. The judge has not issued the final decision in that, and it's important that your viewers know that I'm not a lawyer and I've never been to law school. I'm just doing these things pro se. But we might learn some more on that. The police have really stymied my legal efforts and haven't told us anything. But, I mean, there might be. There might be drones there. I haven't seen the Hades aircraft, but people are investigating that now, going back and looking for the tail numbers and the radar information. Was that type of aircraft anywhere near here? I think the best evidence that we were lied to, to in Butler, Pennsylvania, is this manipulation of the photographic evidence on the roof. That tells me that Thomas Crooks was never on that roof. It was Maxwell Yurich, and the body's been burned up. We're never going to see that guy again. We just don't know. But what I think the drones are doing in both situations, Clayton, is they are creating a secure communications network. I mean, think about what the military is developing, developing this stuff for. If you insert Delta Force into the middle of the desert in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda or whatever it is, the Taliban, you don't have a WI fi network there, but you put a couple of drones up in the sky and they're broadcasting WI fi and Internet and all kinds of secure communication signals. Now, your operators in different locations. Somebody's in a helicopter, somebody's on the ground, Somebody's back at the base. They're all in communication. This is an unhackable sign, secure network. We can link up what the operators are doing. We can say, hey, we got a guy in the tree with a sniper's nest. Take him out. You know, it's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and I think that's what these drones are doing in both situations. I also think in the case of Butler and the case of Orem, Utah, with Charlie Kirk, they're coordinating multiple shooters. I think we do have somebody firing a rifle, but I don't think that's what hit Charlie Kirk. I think there was a second gunshot from behind Charlie Kirk. And I think these guns are using what's called a digital trigger, where one trigger pull can fire both guns simultaneously. And so the communication between those guns would also be handled on a secure closed network and ad hoc WI fi network created by these ISR drones that are flying around over the site.

A (73:34)

My God, I hope to God we get answers on these gunshots and what sort of projectiles hit Charlie Kirk, because we are all owed this information. The families owed this information. The American people are owed this information. And with regards to Butler, with regards to the Charlie Kirk assassination. But, Jason, I want to thank you for furthering this story and sharing all of your hard work on this. And I want to thank you for, you know, being brave and coming forward and sharing it with our audience today.

D (74:04)

Thanks for having me on, Clay.

A (74:07)

Jason Goodman from crowdsource the Truth. You can check out all of his work over there and continue to follow the story as he uncovers more information. Again, thanks, Jason. We really appreciate it. And thanks to all of you for watching us on this Thursday. We really appreciate it. We should tell you, you. We do have a daily newsletter. If you head over to redacted.inc, that's the place to go. Just put in your information there. You'll receive the newsletter first thing in the morning over your cup of coffee. We publish it Monday through Thursday. Natalie and I work pretty hard on this to. We're a small team here. We don't have a. We don't take billions from anybody. We don't have investors. We're supported by you. So head ON over to redacted.inc. put in your info. You'll receive the newsletter first thing in the morning. And our thanks to all of you for joining us on this crazy news week. We will be back here on Monday live at 4pm Eastern Time. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend. Have a great night, everyone.