The Culture War - Tim Pool - Candace Owens DROPS NEW Charlie Kirk ＂Assassination＂ Footage

00:00:00.000 Candace Owens has released footage showing a man running across the rooftop in Utah,

00:00:05.960 taking a prone position, then getting up and running.

00:00:10.060 We can't really discern much from this video other than it is new footage that apparently

00:00:15.480 comes from Utah.

00:00:16.880 We don't know if it's the proper date.

00:00:18.400 We don't know if it's real footage.

00:00:19.500 It could have been staged after the fact.

00:00:20.700 We don't know.

00:00:22.420 Now, the people who believe Charlie Kirk was assassinated, not by Tyler Robinson, the people

00:00:27.380 who believe Candace Owens are just going to believe Candace Owens in his capacity. And Alex

00:00:32.440 Jones has made a series of statements which are just plum not true. I'm not here to tell you what

00:00:37.640 to believe. I'm not here to tell you who you should trust or not trust. I'm just going to point out

00:00:43.140 what we know about this footage. And I'm going to just say right now, right off the bat, there is

00:00:50.000 no evidence, at least as far as I can tell, that the footage released by Candace Owens is from the

00:00:56.940 assassination of Charlie Kirk. That's it. Somebody can go right now and film this video, upload it,

00:01:04.080 and claim it's from the time that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. There's no verification of this.

00:01:08.900 I'll tell you my assessment right off the bat. Just so you know where I'm coming from,

00:01:12.940 and you don't have to like me, you can comment below, but I'm going to tell you my bias. I

00:01:15.560 believe that Candace Owens is deep state. I believe that, you know, she married a British 0.99

00:01:20.620 lord. Their story, two weeks after they meet, they go on no dates. He calls her on the phone

00:01:25.720 and says, let's get married. And she goes, sure. She marries into the British House of Lords.

00:01:30.740 Her lawyers work in a building with federal agents by her own admission.

00:01:34.900 I just don't believe any of this is real. I believe that her goal and her intention and

00:01:38.900 the reason why the the the ad rates on content related to her and Erica Kirk are extremely high.

00:01:45.140 I believe it's all it's all fake. It's all intentional. And, you know, look, they come

00:01:48.640 after me for saying things like this. But let's go over the story and then I'll talk to you about

00:01:51.820 my personal opinions on this one. Sportskeeda says, Candace Owens releases footage of a man

00:01:57.400 not resembling Tyler Robinson on the rooftop doing lateral lateral crawl before Charlie

00:02:03.220 Kirk's assassination. We don't know when this footage is from. It's coming from an unofficial

00:02:08.160 source. Somebody could go right now on the roof and film this video. This is this is just I feel

00:02:15.220 like I'm taking crazy pills. It's the most demoralizing thing ever. I got to tell you this.

00:02:20.000 And if ever there was anything that was going to make me just give up, it's this.

00:02:26.760 It is the evil, the lies, the manipulation.

00:02:31.040 All right, let's pull up the video here.

00:02:34.460 And the funny thing is, look at Sportskeeda titles that not resembling Tyler Robinson.

00:02:38.820 Shadow of Ezra said, Candace Owens releases never-before-seen footage of the person on

00:02:43.400 the rooftop during the Charlie Kirk assassination who does resemble Tyler Robinson.

00:02:46.800 You know what?

00:02:48.500 You see what I'm talking about?

00:02:50.000 I'm not interested in any of this.

00:02:51.440 OK, let's pull up what Alex Jones had to say, who is also, I believe, putting out.

00:02:57.180 Look, Alex, I'm just uninterested in the in fake.

00:03:01.800 OK.

00:03:03.200 Here's what Alex Jones says.

00:03:05.160 The official Charlie Kirk assassination story is now 100 percent dead.

00:03:08.100 It's not.

00:03:09.480 Candace Owens just dropped powerful never before never before seen surveillance video 0.95

00:03:13.500 of the lowest he sent a rooftop. 0.74

00:03:15.360 She didn't.

00:03:16.120 It was filmed, I believe, on cell phone.

00:03:17.580 I believe Kenneth specifically stated it was a guy who was filming, not surveillance footage.

00:03:22.720 The video Owens released appears to be raw and unedited.

00:03:25.700 This is the same footage the court will not let the public see.

00:03:28.240 We don't know that.

00:03:29.360 That we are meant to believe is Tyler Robinson assassinating Kirk.

00:03:32.580 The individual does not look like Tyler Robinson.

00:03:34.400 In fact, the individual doesn't look like anybody.

00:03:35.860 It's a grainy, low-res, faraway cell phone video.

00:03:38.820 The rifle is never pulled from the pants.

00:03:41.480 Presumably, but we don't exactly know anything.

00:03:44.320 The person in the footage has no limp.

00:03:45.980 That's correct.

00:03:47.280 Nowhere do we see the shooter assembling the gun on the roof, as we were told.

00:03:50.880 No recoil is seen.

00:03:52.220 You wouldn't.

00:03:53.140 He performs military maneuvers.

00:03:54.680 He doesn't.

00:03:55.460 With precision as well as signaling before opening fire, the official narrative has just

00:03:59.580 collapsed.

00:04:00.760 I don't care about views, guys.

00:04:03.400 I don't care if I get a million views, 10 views, 100 views.

00:04:08.360 This is just, I don't know what to say. 0.98

00:04:13.440 It's just pathetic. 0.99

00:04:15.540 All of it is just pathetic. 0.99

00:04:17.960 This is the game that all these people in media play. 0.99

00:04:20.960 Lowest common denominator.

00:04:22.680 Can you get the most amount of views from your content?

00:04:26.780 So here's video footage.

00:04:28.760 It is a screen recording of a screen recording.

00:04:32.100 Typically in the AI world, this is a technique that can be used, I'm not saying it was,

00:04:37.120 to obfuscate AI imperfections.

00:04:42.420 So the technique is, if you make an AI-generated video, it's going to look kind of weird in some

00:04:46.900 respects. You can thin out the edges, sort of, you know, make it harder to see by filming the

00:04:54.940 footage with your phone. Now, it's possible this is the actual footage. I'm just saying nothing is

00:05:01.320 confirmed right now other than this video was posted. We don't know where it was from, when it

00:05:05.580 was from. We don't know anything. Well, let me play the clip from Candace's show. Lateral crawl.

00:05:08.560 Let's watch that.

00:05:17.300 There's a person.

00:05:19.080 There he goes.

00:05:20.260 Crawling on the ground.

00:05:21.260 And I actually do want to show you side by side so you can actually see a real military man do that alongside this person on the rooftop.

00:05:29.960 Let's bring in that side by side clip.

00:05:31.580 Here we go.

00:05:32.060 that general action right there is known as a lateral crawl yes but that's fake what Candace

00:05:40.960 is doing is trying to make you draw conclusions it's called assumptive reasoning hey look here's

00:05:46.220 a video of a military guy doing a kind of crawl hey a kind of similar crawl that doesn't prove 1.00

00:05:52.160 or mean anything I can't discern anything from this but if you're stupid you'll you'll believe 1.00

00:05:58.940 all of it, I guess. Let's play the beginning of the video here. And the footage is completely 0.99

00:06:04.280 removed. So let's watch that. So there's a person running across the rooftop.

00:06:13.320 Oh, and you know what? The person actually does have a limp. That's interesting.

00:06:17.000 This limp that he has in the footage is completely removed. It's actually not. You can actually see

00:06:23.180 that there actually is a right leg limp. So you can see that this video footage is about 10 to

00:06:28.620 15 frames per second, which means that there's frame jumping. It's hard to see. But if you

00:06:33.160 actually watch the right leg, the left leg is bent. Was it the right leg? Because I thought

00:06:36.600 when I first watched this, I thought there was no limp. But watching it now,

00:06:39.840 you can actually see that there is a slight limp. Like, if you were trying to keep your

00:06:45.760 leg straight while you were running, which is entirely possible to do, that looks like it's

00:06:50.160 possible. Now, what happens next is exactly as my source stipulated, our rooftop guy begins a

00:07:02.040 tactical crawl. It's actually known in the military as a lateral crawl. Let's watch that.

00:07:10.780 Again, that's that's called assumptive reasoning, right? You see a video of a guy crawling. You

00:07:15.820 then explain the military does a technique like this. We can't really see exactly what the guys

00:07:20.080 doing. There's no legitimate reason for him to do a lateral crawl on this rooftop. He could do a

00:07:24.500 prone. He could crawl forward. I forgot. I don't know what it's called, but you don't need to.

00:07:29.800 So why even bring it up? Because she's trying to make you draw a conclusion that isn't

00:07:34.740 there for you to to conclude. It's called, again, assumptive reasoning.

00:07:39.220 There's a there was a video I watched where someone explains, as he says, you do an interview

00:07:44.260 with a person and you take two like two jigsaw puzzle pieces and you put them in front of the

00:07:48.940 person. The person will look at them, and eventually they will conclude these pieces

00:07:54.180 might actually go together, despite the fact they could be from two entirely different puzzles. A

00:07:58.580 better way to describe it actually was the one he uses, Legos, because you have these two Lego

00:08:03.060 pieces, and you could say, hey, you know what? Those go together. Now, actually, yeah, many Legos

00:08:07.620 can click together, but here's the thing. If I've got like a Lego Hobbit set, and then I have a Lego

00:08:12.960 Harry Potter set, you might notice the wand and the broom and the characters and think they go

00:08:17.220 together because they look similar. And you might put them together and say, look at this,

00:08:21.420 wizards and magic. But only then can someone come out and say, actually, those are two distinct

00:08:25.720 sets. They don't go together. They just look similar. This is the concept of assumptive

00:08:31.080 reasoning. You present information to someone, present a false connection so that they will

00:08:36.820 draw a conclusion in their own mind that you did not say. Candace did not say this guy was military.

00:08:41.980 She said he's doing something that people in the military do.

00:08:46.000 She's hoping that most of her audience will conclude this guy is military, which she did not say.

00:08:52.360 Here, let's watch more.

00:08:53.320 Worth there.

00:08:56.960 There's some kind of grainy flash.

00:08:59.080 We don't know why.

00:09:00.140 So you now have that.

00:09:02.980 Next up, what you are going to see is that it's going to look as though as he gets into position and completes this lateral crawl,

00:09:10.520 that he thrusts something forward in a way

00:09:14.020 that my brain told me

00:09:15.420 it looked like he was unfolding a gun.

00:09:19.900 Truly, that's what my brain told me.

00:09:22.300 Again, more substantive reasoning.

00:09:23.480 I don't know.

00:09:24.720 It's not definitive.

00:09:25.920 That's me narrating.

00:09:27.400 I'm happy for people to disagree

00:09:28.520 and debate what is seen,

00:09:30.660 but let's just watch that portion here.

00:09:35.600 So you can't really see exactly what's going on.

00:09:38.600 There we go.

00:09:39.280 something then comes out and we can watch that again something forward again i would like to

00:09:47.920 reference the kyle rittenhouse trial for those that watched it in the kyle rittenhouse trial

00:09:52.100 the prosecution tried to use zoom features on a phone as evidence of the direction the gun was

00:09:58.300 being pointed the issue is that zoom feature is an ai generated it's cgi you can't actually zoom

00:10:05.200 in on images because the information doesn't exist. So in order to zoom, the computer will

00:10:12.040 extrapolate. It will just make assumptions based on the existing structures and create pixels

00:10:16.740 so that it can look like you're zooming in when you're actually not. In this instance,

00:10:21.340 not only are we looking at a camera that is filming a screen, Candice has also zoomed in

00:10:25.780 on the footage, so you have three degrees removed from the source material. We can't conclude

00:10:31.380 anything from this.

00:10:33.880 Hey, I'm Ruby Carr,

00:10:35.080 the host of the podcast Encore.

00:10:37.040 Check out our brand new episodes

00:10:38.860 featuring music from the show

00:10:40.560 that everyone is reheating

00:10:42.140 as we speak,

00:10:43.260 Heated Rivalry.

00:10:44.580 Join me as I go behind the songs

00:10:46.460 that brought Shane and Elia together.

00:10:48.380 I'll tell you the stories of Vice,

00:10:50.020 My Moon, My Man,

00:10:51.100 Wolf Parades,

00:10:51.840 I'll Believe in Anything, 0.93

00:10:52.920 and Tattoos,

00:10:53.920 All the Things She Said,

00:10:55.080 and how they all became a part

00:10:56.660 of this global phenomenon.

00:10:58.400 Stream Encore on iHeartRadio,

00:11:00.200 crave or wherever you get your podcasts. But more importantly than what we see here

00:11:07.560 is what we're not going to see here. So remember, this is supposed to be a German 98 Mauser family

00:11:15.360 heirloom gun used during World War I and World War II. Again, all of this is still making the

00:11:23.320 assumption that this video footage is from that day, despite there being no evidence that the

00:11:27.160 video footage Candace released is from this day. Guys, that's just it. That's the first question

00:11:35.280 I have. Is there any evidence this is actual footage from that day? Could somebody have in

00:11:41.840 the year since, could somebody nearly a year have gone on the roof at this university in Utah

00:11:49.900 and filmed this?

00:11:52.520 And if the answer is yes,

00:11:55.440 what's the chain of custody for this footage?

00:11:57.960 Well, of course, as you know,

00:11:59.300 the question is just going to be,

00:12:00.380 do you trust Candace?

00:12:01.760 And by the way, if you are listening to this in audio,

00:12:03.580 this is one of these episodes

00:12:04.400 that you actually do have to go watch.

00:12:06.720 So you will have to pivot over to YouTube,

00:12:09.480 to Spotify, somewhere that provides the video,

00:12:13.380 because this is not something

00:12:14.520 that we could just produce

00:12:15.980 on an audio podcast here, unfortunately.

00:12:19.900 But this is going to run.

00:12:22.260 We did have to obviously zoom in and push out those Fed timestamps.

00:12:30.660 Push out those Fed timestamps?

00:12:33.980 Let's see here.

00:12:36.160 I have 10 more seconds here.

00:12:38.220 Okay, he is up.

00:12:43.100 Anybody?

00:12:47.480 Anybody see a recoil?

00:12:49.900 I didn't see one, but let's actually put that footage all together uninterrupted.

00:12:55.820 Here we go for you guys to watch.

00:12:58.780 No timestamps.

00:13:01.040 I want to just pause and say like entirely possible this is the actual footage.

00:13:04.900 I'm just saying you come to me with an internet video of a screen of a recording of a screen

00:13:09.740 zoomed in and say that trust me, I'm going to be like, well, no, it's interesting.

00:13:17.260 But the first presumption is when we're dealing with chain of custody, when we're dealing with logic and trying to break this down, the first question we have is, what is the probability this footage is actually real?

00:13:27.140 I give it a double-digit probability.

00:13:28.740 It's actual footage.

00:13:29.560 I think Candace has been able to produce information in the past that has turned out to be real information.

00:13:33.980 Whether the context she provides is accurate is a different question.

00:13:37.560 So there's a decent probability I think this might be the actual footage.

00:13:41.400 However, I don't know.

00:13:43.780 So what am I supposed to conclude?

00:13:45.120 And the question is, why did Alex Jones decide to conclude it?

00:13:48.640 That's not rational.

00:13:52.840 So here's a person.

00:13:54.240 We don't know who it is.

00:13:56.160 There actually is a stagger.

00:13:57.340 You can actually see a stagger.

00:13:58.560 I don't know why.

00:13:59.400 Definitively, he gets down into what is known as a lateral military crawl.

00:14:06.280 Why?

00:14:06.840 That crawl over to the right first.

00:14:10.880 And then to the left, we see a quick flash.

00:14:13.200 I'm going to ask you guys this.

00:14:14.220 Comment below.

00:14:15.120 What is the purpose of this individual running upright full speed and then doing a left-right

00:14:19.680 lateral crawl? Honest question. What is the military purpose for it? Why would this individual

00:14:24.280 need to do it? If they were staging a fake shooting, the implication being there was no

00:14:27.540 recoil, what was the purpose of the lateral crawl? I'm not sure what that flash is. Actually,

00:14:34.120 this looks like, I'm not going to read into it. There's that throw forward. I say fold forward,

00:14:44.540 You can say throw forward, but that's definitely something being flung forward, getting into position.

00:14:52.540 And here we wait for what we expect to be some sort of a kickback.

00:15:02.180 Why would you expect kickback or recoil?

00:15:05.400 This must have been when our source began recording from the side of a low-sea building and said, oh, I just saw someone get up there.

00:15:11.140 He's got a gun.

00:15:14.540 and he's up and he's gone

00:15:26.980 and there he goes running uh the problem is is it's it's zoomed in and i'm wondering if there's

00:15:36.680 uh i'm wondering if if that can't like can we get the full video i mean that's the challenge

00:15:43.300 Let me see if I can find the footage that is publicly released here.

00:15:52.780 So let's kind of zoom that out.

00:15:56.380 There's the Alex Jones post.

00:15:58.100 Let me see if I can find the—I should have pulled this up beforehand.

00:16:02.180 Here we go.

00:16:03.220 We do have the original video.

00:16:06.080 Okay, hold on a minute.

00:16:07.900 Hold on a minute.

00:16:09.860 These are different videos.

00:16:11.720 Take a look at this.

00:16:12.400 This is the video that was publicly released.

00:16:15.780 The FBI releases footage of the Charlie Kirk shooter.

00:16:17.440 This was published September 11th, 2025.

00:16:20.160 Watch this.

00:16:21.300 So you can see the individual is actually running out from behind this upper structure.

00:16:27.300 But when we go to the video footage that Candace has released, let's zoom in here.

00:16:32.440 The individual running away runs forward of that building.

00:16:36.800 So let's see if we can jump ahead.

00:16:39.280 And here we wait.

00:16:42.360 So see this line on the roof?

00:16:46.420 Let's see, the individual is going to run.

00:16:49.840 Any second now.

00:16:52.000 And he's up.

00:16:53.280 And this individual runs.

00:16:56.960 Okay, no, it is entirely possible he turns left.

00:17:00.600 But that doesn't rightly make sense.

00:17:05.100 So I have questions.

00:17:06.940 You can see the line here.

00:17:07.820 So, okay, actually, it actually does make sense.

00:17:10.940 If the individual is over here, for those that are watching the video, and runs straight,

00:17:14.880 they are behind the building and then comes around the backside here.

00:17:19.320 In fact, that does look like the same person, very interestingly enough.

00:17:23.920 The clothes look the exact same.

00:17:26.360 This looks like the person in question.

00:17:28.000 Wow, this is interesting.

00:17:29.100 There's a digital Zoom, which, you know, don't trust, because digital Zoom changes things.

00:17:34.240 But there's an individual and client.

00:17:35.500 I think this might actually be the video.

00:17:38.440 So the question I have then is. Here's here's Viva Frye. The individual does not look like Tyler Robinson. If you can't identify Tyler from this video, which has been the argument from the beginning, which I recognize you can't, and you can't exclude him either. I agree the video was too blurry and people will rightly be very skeptical of how Posobiec and Johnson described what they saw in the courtroom. 0.97

00:17:59.940 I appreciate this will be an argument for reasonable doubt at trial, but at a preliminary hearing where threshold is probable cause stage, identity of the person on the roof in this video has been identified through other video and other witnesses, including Tweggs himself.

00:18:14.560 That said, now the argument is a military trained individual on the roof who took the shot.

00:18:18.760 Well, there goes the exploding mic trap door theory.

00:18:21.480 He didn't take the shot.

00:18:22.620 So what was the military trained guy doing on the roof?

00:18:25.420 Also, there is nothing military about that shuffle.

00:18:27.940 It's what any child would do of trying to crawl without getting noticed.

00:18:30.920 Well, I mean, the question I have is, why crawl at all?

00:18:33.820 That doesn't quite make sense.

00:18:35.560 Like, an honest question.

00:18:36.440 It doesn't quite make sense.

00:18:38.700 Robbie Starbuck says, claim.

00:18:40.080 The individual does not look like Tyler Robinson.

00:18:41.820 He says, reality, yeah, because it's from an angle where it looks like no one in particular

00:18:44.860 at all.

00:18:45.320 Indeed, you can't really see anything.

00:18:47.320 In fact, you can't even figure out what that kind of crawl is because it's grainy and zoomed

00:18:50.960 in.

00:18:51.840 The rifle is never pulled from his pants.

00:18:53.680 Again, wrong angle.

00:18:54.460 but additionally, what if he pulled the rifle before running across the rooftop? What if he

00:18:58.280 got to the upstairs of the door, pulled it out? I mean, these are honest questions. Just answer

00:19:02.580 them in the comments. The person in the footage has no limp. Reality, yeah, he hasn't jumped off

00:19:08.300 the roof yet in this footage. I think that landing is what made the limp. No, Robbie, the point is he

00:19:12.740 has the rifle down his pant leg, and in earlier footage, he was limping because he couldn't bend

00:19:16.900 his knee. No recoil is seen. Reality, Candace overstates the recoil you'd have in this position,

00:19:21.400 and the footage isn't at the right angle or quality to judge a recoil.

00:19:25.000 And that's true.

00:19:26.240 The medical examiner investigators confirmed the angle of the shot, by the way.

00:19:29.320 I went to a shooting range.

00:19:30.640 We had an RN-50, for those that aren't familiar,

00:19:32.640 it's a breech loader 50 BMG, meaning maximum recoil on a 50 BMG.

00:19:38.900 And no one's flying back.

00:19:43.520 You can't see anything.

00:19:45.000 I've got a Barrett M82A, and this is a semi-automatic 50 BMG.

00:19:51.400 The semi-automatic function of the rifle absorbs some of the recoil. It uses recoil

00:19:57.980 to chamber the next round, which reduces what you would experience in terms of recoil.

00:20:02.740 You don't see much. I got a 308. We filmed videos of it. You don't see much from a distance. You

00:20:09.860 hear a bang. That's it. Claim he performs military maneuvers with precision as well as signaling

00:20:16.200 before opening fire reality. If you're trying to be incognito, anyone would crawl in some form or

00:20:20.440 fashion. It's not all that surprising. But again, no, the dude runs full speed out onto the roof

00:20:26.240 and then just does a crawl, if you're right, which doesn't do anything. That's just it.

00:20:31.940 It doesn't do anything. Sports Gita says, Candace recently released footage of a man

00:20:37.740 moving across a rooftop before Charlie Cook's assassination. I'm going to go ahead and pause

00:20:41.060 and say, we don't actually know this. Look, people who trust Candace are going to say,

00:20:46.760 of course it's legit. Okay, I don't know that. I'm not saying it is or isn't. Actually,

00:20:52.740 I lean towards it. It very well may be. But the first thing we have to do in determining

00:20:55.920 probability of any outcome is you have to factor in the exponential variables. The variables grow

00:21:03.180 exponentially as you move down your order of thinking and your sequence of events.

00:21:11.660 That is, let's look at it like a chessboard.

00:21:14.580 You have a handful of moves.

00:21:17.200 In the opening, you can move your knight.

00:21:18.920 They can jump over the pawns.

00:21:19.840 Nothing else can move other than the pawns.

00:21:21.780 How many variables do you have?

00:21:24.160 Well, each pawn can move up one space or two spaces, which is, I believe, the bird's opening.

00:21:29.780 I don't play chess in a long time.

00:21:31.400 And then you have the knights, which can make two moves upward and left, upward and right.

00:21:36.080 Those are your immediate variables.

00:21:39.000 After you move a single pawn, the amount of variables dramatically increase.

00:21:44.140 You've opened up movements from potentially your queen, from a rook, from the other knight

00:21:50.120 or the bishop.

00:21:51.660 Now, the amount of moves available to you increase to a massive degree.

00:21:56.260 By the time you're on your fifth or sixth move, you could be looking at tens of thousands

00:22:00.300 of potential variables that are emerging, and it exponentially grows.

00:22:04.320 So when we're looking at video footage of Tyler Robinson, allegedly, or whoever they think it is,

00:22:09.900 the first thing we have to ask ourselves is, what is the probability this is real footage?

00:22:14.940 And I honestly don't know. It's hard to calculate. So Candace has produced legitimate information

00:22:21.500 in the past. And I don't I don't mean correct context. I'm saying she's gotten source material

00:22:25.580 that has that has borne out before. And so I'll give her that credit, though. I think she's

00:22:30.500 largely just lying for the most part. In which case, let's call it 60 percent because I believe

00:22:37.340 that Candace is being fed information intentionally to confuse and mislead people. But at least this 0.99

00:22:42.620 kind of lends itself to debunking. I'm not saying it does debunk, but lends itself to the exploding

00:22:48.560 mic theory being silly because we have a video of a guy in a roof getting in a prone position with

00:22:53.280 some kind of long black object, which probably is a gun. Now, she asks questions and she performs 0.61

00:22:58.260 called assumptive reasoning. That is, she presents information in a way where she's never definitively

00:23:02.380 said it's something, but she wants you to make those assumptions. If this footage is, in fact,

00:23:09.140 not from the day of the shooting and someone just recreated it because it's the internet,

00:23:15.680 how would you know? That's it. How would you know? They put on clothing similar to the video

00:23:21.340 released by the feds. We had a year to produce footage like this. Someone could walk onto the

00:23:26.740 roof because we know no one's guarding it, and they could stage this, and no one would do anything

00:23:31.480 about it. So if that's where we're starting off with, our variables are already many, right?

00:23:40.860 Next set. We then have to calculate, if this footage is real, we can ask all of the questions

00:23:45.700 being asked by Candace. If the footage is false, then we have to ask a series of other questions.

00:23:51.300 who did it? Why would they do it? What are the benefits? I would admittedly say that is less

00:23:57.160 likely, but still decently probable in that there's money to be made. I mean, just think

00:24:02.020 about the news coverage that Candace is getting. If somebody went and fabricated this footage. 0.77

00:24:07.240 Here you go. Let's say there's somebody that deeply believes Israel did it. 0.96

00:24:12.220 And they knew if they could just get that footage. So they decide, you know what? I know it's true. 0.95

00:24:17.920 I'll just fake the footage that more people will agree with me. This kind of thing happens all the

00:24:22.620 time. We see it quite a bit with the left. The ends justify the means. Not knowing whether this

00:24:29.200 is true or not, I'm going to ask you straight up, Alex, why are you saying it's 100% dead?

00:24:36.900 Most of what you said is just, I mean, this is insanity to me. This is not the Alex Jones that

00:24:45.000 I know. Alex Jones would not just come out and say a bunch of things that are easily debunked

00:24:52.640 or immaterial to the argument. Maybe he would. Maybe that's who Alex Jones is, I guess.

00:24:59.580 I don't know what exactly happened on that fateful day. I don't. I don't believe the official story.

00:25:06.700 I don't completely disbelieve it. I believe information is being withheld because they

00:25:10.680 always do. I believe that there were other individuals involved because we saw that

00:25:14.540 evidence emerge online of people who seem to have foreknowledge. I believe that the exploding

00:25:19.300 mic theory is intentionally meant to manipulate and deceive. I've already dealt with people saying

00:25:26.200 he was shot from underground. This is you may not have heard them. That's yes. They say that

00:25:32.180 someone opened up a hatch and shot Charlie from the underground. Others have argued that a man

00:25:37.540 was hiding in full camos in a bush in front of Charlie. Others argued that a man fired from the

00:25:42.280 window behind Charlie. Now many have settled on the exploding mic theory. There is no positive

00:25:49.680 evidence. We just don't know. The only positive evidence that we have indicates Tyler Robinson.

00:25:56.180 Now, I would be concerned with what we describe as an orgy of evidence, and that's the best

00:26:01.180 argument against Tyler Robinson. That witnesses came out and say, I mean, it's an open and shut

00:26:05.760 case is the best argument to really? Like he wrote a note. I did it. Confessed. Yeah. But

00:26:15.520 that being said, none of it is not evidence, right? It's still positive evidence. We may find

00:26:24.300 it to be suspect, like, hmm, it's pretty dang convenient. The reality is sometimes evidence

00:26:29.900 just is. What is easier to believe? There is a violent faction of leftists in this country.

00:26:37.300 They have killed before. They've tried to kill the president. Now you got people coming out 0.83

00:26:42.080 saying, no, they think Trump faked it. And I'm like, guys, it exists in the realm of possibility,

00:26:47.640 but the probabilities were remarkably low. A guy died on that day. Corey Compertor is dead.

00:26:55.480 They didn't shoot at Trump intentionally missing and then Trump spatters a blood packet.

00:27:02.080 I mean, that's like, guys, there's likely a conspiracy around the Trump assassination

00:27:08.340 attempt.

00:27:09.400 I absolutely believe so.

00:27:11.760 But I believe it was more so a conspiracy to stop Trump.

00:27:14.860 Makes substantially more sense.

00:27:16.960 It wouldn't make sense for Trump to nuke USAID and to gut the deep state if he was

00:27:24.040 in on it. Or I guess the argument is Trump staged it so he could win and beat the deep state.

00:27:29.020 All of those exist in the realm of possibility, but not in high probability. The higher probability

00:27:34.680 for the Trump assassination attempt is somebody pulled security. They wanted Trump to die. 0.79

00:27:39.740 There's no, listen, I'm going to say this too. The probability in the Trump assassin, in Butler,

00:27:45.500 that dude was flying a drone around. Somebody knew something. That's just an inside job.

00:27:51.520 It's there.

00:27:52.780 There's there's no probability where they accidentally let this dude come in with a gun,

00:27:56.580 fly a drone around, then go on a roof with no police or security and take a shot at the

00:28:00.220 president or future president.

00:28:03.580 As for Charlie Kirk, if you want to make an argument for conspiracy, the better argument

00:28:08.020 is Tyler Robinson did it, but he's a patsy or pets is not the right word, but he's the

00:28:15.200 guy that they got to do it.

00:28:16.760 And they pulled security to allow it to happen very similar to to Butler.

00:28:20.520 These arguments of exploding mics, I think these are all red herrings.

00:28:24.400 The way the intelligence agencies try to debunk actual investigations into assassinations

00:28:29.120 and other criminal activity is to make people go in the wrong direction.

00:28:33.120 Thus, I look at what Candace is doing, and I think she's deep state. 1.00

00:28:37.260 I think what she's doing intentionally obfuscates and makes it difficult for regular people 0.98

00:28:41.960 to actually break down what's going on.

00:28:44.120 Where's the conversation on these individuals making posts on social media where they seem

00:28:47.720 to have foreknowledge?

00:28:49.060 Why aren't we investigating that thread and that through line?

00:28:52.900 You can believe whatever you want to believe, my friends.

00:28:54.920 I do not know everything.

00:28:56.800 What I can tell you is I approach this from what is the available evidence?

00:29:00.440 What are the motives?

00:29:01.320 What are the what and what can we conclude?

00:29:03.920 And the reality is.

00:29:06.140 As it pertains to a conspiracy to kill Charlie Kirk, I believe there was one.

00:29:10.720 I believe it involved Tyler Robinson.

00:29:12.520 I believe that there are other powerful interests involved because there were many vehicles

00:29:16.260 outside of his house.

00:29:16.860 people expressed foreknowledge and we need answers. But we aren't getting those investigations

00:29:20.940 and Candace is making it harder for us to ask those questions. She's actually insinuating 1.00

00:29:26.480 Tyler Robinson was not involved, but that doesn't even fit the potential for what a conspiracy

00:29:30.620 would look like. As we know, many people have brought up that the Butler assassin appeared in

00:29:35.880 weird videos. Right. So typically what we know about assassinations is you groom someone 0.98

00:29:41.920 to be your assassin and have them take the fall. You don't frame a random person for no reason

00:29:49.460 because that's easily debunked. Candace is pursuing a through line that defies our typical

00:29:55.020 understanding of how governments deal with assassinations, what the typical strategies 0.93

00:30:00.120 are. The question is why? Maybe she's genuinely just ignorant and you throw her some red meat and

00:30:06.680 red herrings and she'll pounce on it because it makes her money. The question then is why does 0.99

00:30:10.380 YouTube prop up these videos? Why would the machine state want her conspiracies to be front 0.95

00:30:15.680 and center number one? Now you tell me, I don't know everything. Smash the like button, share the

00:30:20.420 show. Thanks for hanging out. We got more coming up for you throughout the day. We'll see you all

00:30:23.220 tonight for Timcast IRL.

The Culture War - Tim Pool - July 29, 2026

Candace Owens DROPS NEW Charlie Kirk ＂Assassination＂ Footage

Episode Stats

Transcript