Bret Weinstein, Jimmy Dore, and John Cullen are telling millions of people that Charlie Kirk was assassinated by an Israeli gun drone launched from a U.S. Army spy plane.
Here’s the theory. N1098L, a Bombardier Global 6500 connected to the Army’s HADES program, acted as a mothership. It launched an Elbit “Bird of Prey” — a real Israeli product — hung from a THOR-style multirotor, armed with a Barrett REC10 in 7.62×51. The drone hovered about 110 feet over the UVU Science Building, roughly 325 to 350 yards out, and fired the shot that killed Charlie. The man on the Losee Center roof, Tyler Robinson, was a decoy who ran after the shot so nobody would look up. Two low passes by N1098L over Provo on September 10 were the drop-off and the pickup.
Weinstein calls the evidence supporting this theory: “credible,” “persuasive,” and “compelling.”
Dore says: “That is the most logical and compelling hypothesis of how they killed Charlie Kirk. It lines up with everything. ... There isn't another more compelling theory or hypothesis out there.”
I downloaded the flight data, the FAA records, the tower tapes, the drone schematics, and the hearing transcript and spent the last week learning how Army ISR aircraft are actually built.
Every significant claim they make is wrong.
The spy plane is a flight trainer
N1098L is not an ISR aircraft and it has no drone launch capability. It’s a contractor-operated Global 6500 flown by LASAI Aviation under the callsign AXLE10, later AXEL10. Its job is pilot proficiency on the airframe — teaching future HADES crews to fly the jet before there’s a HADES fleet to fly.
I downloaded the FAA Form 337 records for the tail number. That's the form you file to document a major repair or alteration.
There is no record of ISR equipment or drone launch capability. The most notable completion on file is a lavatory.
You can also just look at the airplane. Here it is on July 9, 2025, two months before Charlie was killed, photographed by a plane spotter in Billings, Montana.
No pods. No pylons. No hardpoints. No antenna farm. No launch tubes. It is a stock Global 6500, indistinguishable from any corporate charter Global 6500, because there’s nothing installed on it.
That isn’t one lucky photo. Here it is August 23, 2024. September 26, 2024. July 9, 2025. October 15, 2025. January 14, 2026.
And here it is September 12, 2025 — two days after Charlie was assassinated, taking off from Idaho Falls.
Eighteen months of videos and photographs from six different people in six different places, before and after September 10, 2025. There’s no ISR or drone launch capabilities every time, exactly as the 337s say.
For contrast, look at an Army ATHENA-R — the same Global 6500 airframe, actually fitted for intelligence work.
Then look at ARTEMIS II, a Challenger 650. VHF and UHF intercept aerials. HF arrays. Direction-finding antennas. Ventral strakes. Cowlings over equipment the Army doesn’t want photographed. It’s easy to identify an operational Army intelligence plane from a distance.
Here’s what a real HADES airplane looks like
So the first of many problems with Bret Weinstein, Jimmy Dore and John Cullen’s theory: N1098L is not an operational HADES spy plane.
N1098L and its sister aircraft, N2100L, are HADES flight-training aircraft.
The first two Army-owned Global 6500s sent into HADES conversion are N808LP and N890JJ. Bombardier delivered the first HADES aircraft to the Army in November 2024. Sierra Nevada Corporation, the program’s lead systems integrator, is still modifying the aircraft into fully functional HADES prototypes. SNC received the second aircraft for that work in 2025.
These jets are currently being rebuilt with the sensors, antennas, mission systems and other modifications that turn a stock Global 6500 into an operational HADES intelligence aircraft.
As late as 2026, these aircraft are still being built.
On June 1, 2026, the first public photograph surfaced of N808LP at Sierra Nevada’s Hagerstown facility during its conversion. The aircraft was visibly covered in the antennas, fairings, and other modifications you would expect from an actual U.S. Army intelligence aircraft.
Compare this aircraft with N1098L and the difference is obvious: one is being transformed into a HADES intelligence aircraft; the one Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen are pointing at for their Charlie Kirk fairy tale is a stock Global 6500.
The question Weinstein asked and never answered
Dore: “There was a military plane that we now know indisputably flew... dipped down to 200 feet above Provo, Utah.”
Weinstein: “Twice! And the explanation for it, if I understand John Cullen’s work correctly, is two missed landings.”
They both laugh believing it’s obvious how suspicious that is.
Then Weinstein says:
“What do I know about how often planes descend to 200 feet? Twice, I don't know. Maybe that's a common behavior. Maybe I don't understand. Somebody's being trained. I don't know what it is.”
Yes, Mr. Weinstein, it’s a very common behavior and you can check this online with a little research.
Every ADS-B transponder in American airspace broadcasts position and altitude, and hobbyist networks have been archiving it for years. I pulled 643 daily trace files for this aircraft, 1,422,906 individual position reports, and screened them for the profile: descend within three miles of a runway, reach a low point near that runway below 165 knots, then climb at least 1,000 feet and carry on.
Between November 2023 and August 2026, N1098L flew that profile at least 396 times at 103 airports.
Lubbock 67 times. Tucson 27. Amarillo and Midland 22 apiece. Biggs Army Airfield 20. Provo 14. Pueblo 13. Topeka and Roswell 9 each. El Paso 8. Colorado Springs and Killeen 7. Cheyenne and Las Cruces 6. Billings 5. Then a long tail across another 88 airports.
A profile like this can be a low approach, a missed approach, a go-around, or a touch-and-go, and the transponder can't tell you which. All four are routine pilot training, happening daily at airports across the country.
Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen looked at this jet descending to 200 feet over Provo's runway on September 10, 2025, and concluded the U.S. Army launched an Israeli gun drone to kill Charlie Kirk.
This airplane flew that same profile about three times a week, every week, for three years.
The two September 10 passes were flown at about 200 and 250 feet above the runway, at roughly 114 and 124 knots, both on a track of 146°. That's runway 13 at Provo Municipal. Field elevation 4,497 feet.
Cullen puts the first pass at roughly 200 to 204 feet and 113 to 118 knots. I have no argument with his numbers. My argument is that he found them and stopped.
And for those two passes specifically, we don’t have to guess what they were doing.
The crew announced it to the control tower
Provo Tower recorded both passes.
The 9:16 a.m. pass, twenty-seven seconds:
“Axle 1-0, traffic straight ahead is a Cessna at 5,500, we’ll be making left traffic.”
“Looking for the traffic, Axle 1-0, and we’re on the missed.”
“Axle 1-0, maintain 9,000, fly the published missed approach.”
The 12:48 p.m. pass — the one the theory calls the pickup — twenty-four seconds:
“Axle 1-0 is with you, inbound on the RNAV 1-3 low approach.”
“Axle 1-0, Provo Tower, fly the approach to minimums, report the missed approach.”
“Axle 1-0 will fly to minimums and we’ll call it missed.”
Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen's theory has this stock business jet somehow recovering a multirotor drone with a rifle dangling from it, twenty-six minutes after the biggest political assassination in a generation.
The tower tape has the crew getting traffic-called on a civilian Cessna and told to fly the published missed approach.
It flies this same Provo route, over and over
December 18, 2023. December 29, 2023. December 13, 2024. April 23, 2025. May 16. July 14. August 20. September 10, twice. October 17. November 12. December 15. January 8, 2026. March 17.
At least fourteen approach-and-climb profiles at Provo, going back a year and nine months before Charlie was killed.
I have FlightRadar24 playbacks for four of them below.
The pattern is the same every time: the airplane leaves El Paso — Biggs Army Airfield at Fort Bliss, where it's based — circles Utah Lake, descends over runway 13 at around 4,500 feet, slows below 150 knots, climbs out, and continues to Long Beach, or Portland, or Bullhead City, or Klamath Falls.
Same aircraft, same lake, same runway, same altitude, same speed, same descent, and same climb. Different days.
Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen never mentioned any of the other twelve at Provo, or the 382 everywhere else, because none of them fit the narrative.
Google the tail number and one of the first results is a Reddit thread from December 2024 — nine months before Charlie was killed — with people asking why this same plane made a low pass over Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport. It came in at 177 feet and 123 knots.
Did they even Google the plane before telling millions the evidence was “logical” and “compelling” that the U.S. Army killed Charlie Kirk with an Israeli gun drone?
Charlie used to ask me to research and write about topics. Then he’d often share what I wrote.
I’m doing the same work now, calling out the people spreading lies about his assassination. 1.4 million ADS-B data points, an FAA file, two tower tapes, a hearing transcript, 18 months of spotter photographs, and a week learning how Army ISR aircraft are actually built.
Jimmy Dore calls me a paid fed for it. And I lose followers every time I correct him and Candace about what happened to Charlie.
It works, though. Candace stopped talking about the Egyptian planes after I debunked them.
Nobody pays me for any of this except my subscribers, who have no control over what I do.
I’ll gladly lose followers telling the truth about Charlie’s murder rather than gain them promoting a lie.
If you want this work to keep happening, become a paid subscriber. And if a subscription isn't your thing, you can send a one-time tip on XMoney instead. 👇
The hearing says the opposite of what they’re telling their audiences
Weinstein: “If we had an FBI that was actually interested in solving this crime, you would think they would be interested in this question… We all agree that there were drones. In fact, I think in the preliminary hearing, the drones were even acknowledged. There were drones. What did they see? Maybe they have better images of people on the roofs... But instead, it's like drones are barely mentioned, if at all. The specialness of these drones is not discussed.”
Dore: "We now know that there were drones at the crime scene. In fact this happened at the court." [plays a clip of Officer Bagley describing Sergeant Nelson flying a drone after Charlie was shot] "So there were drones there and that guy didn't put the drones there."
The transcript is public and it establishes the reverse.
Christopher Bagley, a former UVU police officer assigned to the event, testified on Day 1. Kathryn Nester asked him directly whether drones were flying above campus that day.
Bagley: “Not that I know of.”
Later, same cross-examination:
Nester: “At some point, there were drones in the air, is that right? Did you become aware of that?”
Bagley: “Yes.”
Nester: “Who put them up?”
Bagley: “Sergeant Cameron Nelson, Provo Police Department.”
Nester pinned the timing down — somebody had to bring a drone onto campus after the shooting, because UVU didn’t have one there. Bagley agreed: “True.” UVU had no drone capability at all.
Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen conveyed that to their audiences as confirmation from the hearing that drones were up before or during the murder. It was the opposite. Provo PD launched drones to photograph and survey the campus after Charlie was killed.
The “drone images” from the hearing are law enforcement photographs of the campus, entered as exhibits so a witness could describe building layout and lines of sight. Pictures taken by a law enforcement drone, later, of buildings.
Dore and others accused Charlie’s friend Frank Turek of involvement in the murder or a coverup over similar confusion. Turek misspoke about looking at “drone images” from before Charlie arrived. Those were wide-angle photographs taken from the second-floor balcony above the crowd.
No security or law-enforcement drone was in the air before or during the murder. The hearing produced no evidence of drones in the air before or during Charlie’s murder, and the drone this theory needs isn't a hobbyist quadcopter.
You can’t air-launch a multirotor drone from a jet
Weinstein says the plane had “the ability to deploy them from an aerial platform.” That’s false.
Elbit’s Bird of Prey is a two-axis stabilized rifle mount that hangs underneath a multirotor, meant to be set on the ground and flown off a ground control station.
A quadcopter’s entire control envelope tops out around 21 meters per second — roughly 41 knots. Past about 12 m/s of crosswind it stops being controllable. The passes Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen find suspicious were flown at 114 to 133 knots. Triple the limit.
A fixed wing released at 130 knots is already flying. A multirotor released at 130 knots is a falling object with propellers on it.
That's why every drone the U.S. military and DARPA have air-launched is a fixed-wing: the jet-powered X-61A Gremlin, the tube-launched ALTIUS-600 and 700. Nobody has publicly demonstrated air-launching a multirotor from a fixed-wing aircraft. Nobody has demonstrated recovering one in flight either — which this theory also requires, since the second Provo pass is supposed to be the pickup.
Here's DARPA launching an X-61A Gremlin from a C-130, five years before Charlie was killed:
And here's the Army launching an ALTIUS-700 off a Black Hawk on August 31, 2026:
Look at what those launches take. An external pylon or a cargo ramp, and an airframe built to survive release at speed.
N1098L has none of it. No tubes, no pylons, no hardpoints, no ramp — a pressurized business jet cabin with a door you can’t open in flight. It couldn’t launch a Gremlin or an ALTIUS.
And it certainly can’t launch a Bird of Prey-style multirotor with a Barrett REC10 bolted underneath it. Nor could it recover one.
The objects in the footage move and act like birds
I’ve been flying consumer DJI drones for over a decade — Inspire, Phantom, Mavic, Air, Mini. This is the one part of the article that is a subjective judgment call.
The objects Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen call credible evidence of drones do not move like drones.
A multirotor holds position. It translates in straight lines with visible stops and starts. Its silhouette is fixed and rigid. It doesn’t flap its wings. It doesn’t change shape between frames.
The objects in these clips do all of that.
They’re also silent.
Mid-size consumer drones, FPV rigs, and larger commercial multirotors run between 70 and 100 decibels. A multirotor is constantly adjusting individual motor speeds to accelerate, decelerate, and hold attitude, and that produces a fluctuating high-pitched buzz that’s easily heard by humans. They’re loud and annoying.
Several of these objects pass within feet of the crowd. At that range a drone isn't ambiguous. Everyone underneath would have heard it, or seen it, and realized there’s a drone flying right next to them.
In one clip, something with wings flaps a few feet above Charlie's tent, and Dore says it three times: "It's right over the tent! Right over the tent! Right over the tent! That's a drone!"
There were 3,000 people in the crowd that day and nobody saw a drone flying over Charlie’s tent.
A blurry object that looks like a bird isn't evidence of a drone. If they have something better than these clips, they should produce it.
The gun drone they’re describing is the size of a dining table
Elbit System’s Bird of Prey is around 23 kg. Hang a Barrett REC10 on it — 8 to 9 pounds, 11 to 13 pounds with an optic and a loaded magazine — and you need a heavy-lift multirotor to carry the assembly. Those are four to six feet across and can exceed 100 pounds. DJI Agras territory.
That’s a multirotor drone the size of a dining table, buzzing at close to 100 decibels, with a three-foot rifle hanging underneath it.
Now put it where they put it. Roughly 110 feet above the Science Building, 350 yards from Charlie, clear daylight, noon.
At 110 feet, anyone on or near that building is standing under about 70 decibels of rotor noise — an annoying, fluctuating buzzing sound. And an aircraft that size at that altitude is plainly visible to anyone with line of sight, including a courtyard holding about 3,000 people with hundreds of phones already recording.
Not one frame of video shows it. Not one audio track picked up rotor noise. Not one of 3,000 people said a word about a gunship hovering over the Science Building.
The false assumption underneath all of it
Weinstein and Dore didn’t wake up one morning convinced the U.S. Army was dropping Israeli gun drones on college campuses to carry out the biggest political assassination in a generation. They label the impossible as “compelling,” “credible,” “persuasive,” and “logical” because they believe a false assumption.
Weinstein opens the segment explaining the prosecutor’s fallacy to Dore, and his example is good: a one-in-a-million DNA match means nothing on its own, because in a large enough population somebody’s DNA will match. You need something else tying that specific person to the crime before the number means anything. Valid point.
Then, minutes later:
“The .30-06, maybe there’s some one in 10,000 chance of the bullet having behaved in a, you know, almost unprecedented way that nobody can manage to recreate no matter how many times they try.”
One in 10,000 didn’t come from a forensic pathologist or a medical examiner. It comes from YouTubers firing rounds into pork bones in their backyards and concluding a .30-06 at 140 yards should have punched clean through Charlie’s neck. Weinstein credits the work by name in the same conversation and Dore agrees: “I’m fond of Chris Martenson’s analysis that says that the trajectory of the shot is wrong.”
Martenson holds a doctorate in neurotoxicology from Duke. That's a laboratory research degree. It isn't forensic pathology, and it isn't the same thing as having stood over gunshot wounds.
Pork bones are not a living human neck. No vertebral column, no fascia, no major vessels, no soft tissue elasticity — nothing that behaves the way living tissue behaves when shot by a high-velocity round. His faulty test is then treated as proof that there’s a one in 10,000 chance that Tyler Robinson fired the shot.
And there’s the fallacy he’d just finished explaining, running in reverse. He demands a base rate for the bullet. He never asks for one on the airplane. He says on his podcast that he doesn’t have it — “what do I know about how often planes descend to 200 feet?” — and builds the theory anyway.
The base rate is 396. This airplane flew that profile at least 396 times, fourteen of them at Provo, and nothing happened on the other 394.
Manufacture an impossibility at step one and every insanely ridiculous alternative starts looking reasonable by comparison.
That's how you get two podcasters telling millions of people the evidence is “compelling” and “logical” that an Army flight trainer with no launch equipment released a dining-table-sized multirotor it cannot release, which hovered 110 feet over the Science Building unseen and unheard by 3,000 people, and shot Charlie over the head of the man every piece of evidence identifies as the shooter.
They traded a one-in-10,000 they invented for a stack of things that are physically impossible, and they believe they're being rational.
Ask people who have actually done this
Weinstein says the wound is something “nobody can manage to recreate no matter how many times they try.” The people who do this for a living didn’t need to recreate it because they’ve already seen it.
Joseph Scott Morgan spent his career as a medicolegal death investigator, somewhere near 7,000 cases, including gunshot wounds from nearly every high-velocity platform there is — .308, 7.62, 5.56, .300 Win Mag, .300 Blackout. He’s one of roughly 200 board-certified fellows of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators and an associate professor of applied forensics at Jacksonville State.
He says it's entirely possible that Charlie was shot with a .30-06 from 140 yards.
A Remington Core-Lokt soft point is built to mushroom on impact rather than punch through, and a round like that doesn't always exit. A hit to the spine helps explain why.
Morgan called that spinal hit off the video, before he knew where the bullet ended up:
“He contracts his thumb like this. If you watch an NFL game, and you see somebody with a head injury or a neurological thing, many times you’ll see this. When I saw that initially, I’m thinking it hit his spine.”
That’s where they recovered it.
On the expectation that a rifle round has to blow out the back:
“I think people are expecting to see, it’s like the old Gallagher comedian up on stage with a watermelon. That doesn’t happen with human tissue. The elasticity of the tissue itself will absorb that round.”
And more bluntly:
“There’s certain people that I think actually want this to be — they want to see his spine hanging out of the back of his neck, for whatever reason. But that’s not the reality in the morgue.”
Then there’s Chuck Ritter — retired Green Beret, Silver Star recipient. He was shot four times with 7.62x54R, a round slightly larger than a .30-06 and only negligibly slower. One shot at 25 meters entered his back, traveled down his spine, and stopped near L4. It never exited.
His was full metal jacket, which penetrates deeper than an expanding soft point, because it doesn’t open up and dump its energy the way a Core-Lokt is built to.
“I have shot people in the same area as CK was shot and the bullet lodged in the body, and I have seen other people get shot in the same area with the bullet lodging in the body.”
“I’ve seen plenty of people get shot in the neck and the bullet end up in the body somewhere.”
“Bullets don’t always cause exit wounds, even with relatively large rounds.”
Seven thousand death investigations. And a man who has been shot four times with the relevant caliber, shot other people in the same place, and watched others take rounds there.
Both say what happened to Charlie is entirely possible.
Weinstein and Dore went the other way. Candace Owens told them bullets don't do weird things. Chris Martenson shot some pork bones. On that basis they concluded the official account of Charlie's death is a one-in-10,000 event, threw out all of the corroborating evidence, and went looking for a drone.
What the theory has to ignore
To get to a U.S. Army jet launching an Israeli gun drone the size of a dining table — from an aircraft that can’t launch drones, then recovering it with an aircraft that can’t recover drones — you have to walk past all of this.
And it isn’t a stack of separate claims you can knock down one at a time. The pieces corroborate each other.
A text message on its own is just words on a screen. Somebody could have typed it. But when Robinson texts that the crickets are loud where he’s parked, and a neighbor’s doorbell camera pointed at that street recorded his car with loud crickets on the audio, those two things are now verifying each other. The text didn’t know about the camera. The camera didn’t know about the text. Nobody could adjust one to match the other, because a stranger’s doorbell recorded whatever it recorded days before anyone thought to look.
That pattern runs through the whole case. Different author every time: Robinson’s phone, a stranger’s camera, Google’s servers, a patrol officer’s notebook, a forensics lab, his parents, his boyfriend, and Candace Owens. None of them coordinated.
The rifle. Investigators recovered a bolt-action .30-06 wrapped in a towel, in the woods along the direction the shooter fled. They photographed it. Robinson’s father identified the rifle from those photographs and confronted his son about it.
Start with the question that has to be answered before anything else: why is Tyler Robinson’s rifle, taken from a house 250 miles away in St. George, lying in the woods next to where Charlie Kirk was shot?
He answered it himself, in writing, while the search was still going on:
“if I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything in the news about them finding it.”
“im wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle, because it sounds like the police couldn’t get in for a long while because of the traffic.”
“judging from today I’d say grandpas gun does just fine idk”
He’s describing his own vehicle, his own movement away from the scene, and the police response time — from the inside.
And he’s admitting that his grandpa’s gun did just fine today.
Now watch three independent systems back up those private messages. A neighbor's Ring doorbell camera recorded his Challenger parked near the stash point. A police officer working that night logged a partial license plate matching Robinson's Challenger and believed the male driver was Robinson. Google Maps data pulled off his phone shows a route beginning at that same spot beside the stash point and ending at his home. The doorbell video shows one person get out of the car and one person get back in.
The crickets. Sitting in that car, trying to get the rifle back, Robinson complained in a text about how loud the crickets were.
The Ring footage of his car has loud crickets on it.
A throwaway line in a private message, matched to background audio recorded by a stranger’s doorbell camera on the other side of a street.
The Dremel. About a month before the murder, Robinson asked Lance Twiggs to borrow a Dremel. He said he wanted to engrave ammunition for a family hunting trip. Twiggs testified to that conversation.
Police later recovered a Dremel at Robinson’s home, along with a .30-06 casing etched with the words “test shot.”
Forensic analysis tied that one tool to three separate objects: the test-shot casing in the house, the fired casing inside the rifle in the woods, and three unfired cartridges still loaded in that rifle.
Then Robinson texted Twiggs: “Remember how I was engraving bullets? The messages were mostly a big meme, if I see ‘notices bulge UWU’ on fox news I might have a stroke.”
He texted about what was engraved on casings loaded in his stashed rifle before that information was public.
The roof. Campus video shows a person crawl into a prone shooting position overlooking Charlie, hold it until the gunshot, stand up immediately, sprint across the roof, drop down, and run carrying a long concealed object toward the precise area where the rifle was recovered. In roughly a dozen frames the towel-wrapped shape is visible. Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen may claim you can’t identify Robinson from the video footage. Yet Robinson’s parents, his boyfriend, and his Discord chat identified him from it. Then Robinson identified himself in the footage.
Put their two standards side by side.
A few blurry pixels over Charlie's tent, with no corroborating evidence of any kind, is "logical" and "compelling" proof of a military drone that 3,000 people somehow failed to notice.
A man on a roof — identified by his own parents, by his boyfriend, by twenty friends in a Discord chat, and finally by himself, with his DNA on the rooftop screwdriver and on the rifle recovered along his escape route, and eleven recorded confessions — is too blurry to identify.
The standard moves depending on which answer they need.
The DNA. Robinson is the primary contributor on the rifle, the towel it was wrapped in, and the screwdriver from the rooftop. The rifle statistic is at least a trillion to one. He accounts for 95% of the DNA recovered from the towel and 89% from the screwdriver.
The confessions. The State’s bindover memorandum catalogues eleven separate admissions under Element 1, identity, each with an exhibit citation. They aren’t a single ambiguous remark that could be read the wrong way. They cover the act, the motive, the planning, and the surrender.
The act:
“I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.”
“I am [the one who did it], I’m sorry.”
The motive:
“Why did I do it? … I had enough of his hatred. some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
The planning:
“[I have been planning this] a bit over a week I believe.”
Then the surrender, announced before it happened:
“I’m going to turn myself in willingly.”
And then he did.
The decoy claim, answered by his own friends. Weinstein, Dore, and Cullen’s theory claims the man on the Losee Center roof is a decoy — a body placed there so nobody looks up at the Barrett hanging off a dining table 110 feet above the Science Building.
On the afternoon of September 11, hours after the FBI released surveillance images from UVU, someone in a Discord group of about twenty people tagged Robinson, posted the FBI images, and wrote "wya" — where you at — with a skull emoji. The implication was that the man in the FBI's photos looked like Robinson.
No suspect had been named, but his friends looked at the surveillance images and thought it looked like him.
He answered in about a minute:
“My fucking doppelganger trying to get me in trouble.”
He didn’t dispute the resemblance. He conceded it and made a joke of it.
The group ran with it. Somebody wrote “Tyler killed Charlie!!!!” Somebody floated turning him in for the FBI reward, and Robinson reportedly answered: “Only if I get a cut.” They kept riffing — a Luigi Mangione and McDonald’s reference — and Robinson joked that he’d better get rid of his “manifesto” and the “exact copy rifle” he had lying around.
Then, later that same day, in a different Discord group, minutes before he walked into custody:
“Hey guys, I have bad news for you all. it was me at UVU yesterday. im sorry for all of this. im surrendering through a sheriff friend in a few moments.”
And pressed on the images:
“it was [me]. … look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. it was me. … im serious.”
Before any official accusation existed, a Discord chat of twenty people who knew Robinson looked at the FBI’s photographs and identified him, he conceded the resemblance, then he confirmed it and surrendered — pointing investigators at the footage himself.
The people who knew him. Both parents identified him in the footage. Twiggs said the last two photographs "definitely do look like" Robinson, and testified that Robinson confirmed the confession to him in person, began crying, and said he wished he hadn't done it.
Candace Owens identified him. The photograph she released to cast doubt on the case shows Robinson near campus hours after the shooting, face visible, wearing the same maroon shirt and white-logo Hurley hat he wore on campus that morning. That’s Tyler Robinson’s loudest defender inadvertently producing corroboration.
This is also the exact condition Weinstein described and then forgot. The prosecutor’s fallacy applies to one number standing by itself — a DNA match with nothing attached to it. There is no “by itself” here.
The independent evidence against Tyler Robinson multiplies. Take the odds that:
• a neighbor's doorbell camera coincidentally recorded his car, with crickets on the audio
• he coincidentally texted about how loud the crickets were
• a patrol officer coincidentally logged his plate
• his phone coincidentally generated a route from that spot to his house
• a lab coincidentally matched his Dremel to the etched casings in his home and in his rifle
• he coincidentally texted about engraving those casings
• he coincidentally texted about going back to retrieve the rifle
Now multiply those together.
That's the number Weinstein should have been calculating. Instead he invented one, built on pork bones shot in a backyard.
What the defense hasn’t said. Since March, Robinson’s attorneys have held the full forensic extraction of his phone plus records from Apple, Google, Verizon and AT&T — including 25,253 cell-site records. Those records can establish where he was, which towers his phone hit, what apps were running, and who he communicated with.
Look at what they did with it. They attacked the DNA methodology. They argued the crowd wasn’t endangered because the bullet “traveled above, not through” it. They argued the motive evidence was “an inference without evidence.”
All sentencing arguments. Not one of them says Robinson wasn’t on that roof with his grandpa’s rifle.
No claim the confessions were fabricated. No claim the texts, Discord messages, Google Maps data or Ring footage were manufactured. No alibi. Facing a capital case, holding every record that would prove a frame, they never argued their client was somewhere else.
The odds of the alternative
For the drone theory to hold, the FBI planted a rifle, a Dremel, and an engraved casing, then put Robinson's DNA on the rifle, the towel it was wrapped in, and the rooftop screwdriver. It fabricated Robinson’s texts — including one complaining about crickets that happen to be audible on a neighbor’s doorbell camera, and another describing the police response time from inside a car leaving the scene. It fabricated Google Maps history on his phone. It fabricated Discord messages. It got a patrol officer to invent a plate reading. It compelled Lance Twiggs to lie under oath about a Dremel loan that took place a month before anyone died. It got both of Robinson’s parents to identify their own son as an assassin. It arranged for twenty of his friends to look at FBI surveillance photos and independently think of him, hours before anyone was named. And it wrote eleven separate confessions in Robinson’s voice — including a stated motive, a week of premeditation, and an announcement of his own surrender — before convincing Robinson to walk into custody — after he'd already told his own friends to look at the surveillance footage because it was him.
Then Candace Owens independently published a photograph that supports the same conclusion.
And Robinson's own lawyers, holding every record needed to prove a frame, have said none of it.
Weinstein set all of that aside on the strength of a number he made up about a bullet, and told millions of people the case for an Israeli gun drone dropped from a U.S. Army jet is “credible,” “persuasive,” and “compelling.”
Dore went further: “That is the most logical and compelling hypothesis of how they killed Charlie Kirk. It lines up with everything. ... There isn’t another more compelling theory or hypothesis out there.”
There is. It’s the one with the rifle, the DNA, the towel, the Dremel, the engraved casings, the texts, the Discord messages, the video, the parents, the boyfriend, and eleven confessions. It has been sitting in open court the entire time, and on September 1 a judge looked at it and sent Tyler Robinson to trial for the capital murder of Charlie Kirk.
Sad we are even discussing this. Everyone KNOWS it was Jewish space lasers hijacked by aliens from outer space who are in league with the Freemasons. ;)
I'm a dumb housewife, and even I know you can't launch a drone from a jet, and that touch-and-goes are common at airports. I've watched them. I used to trust Brett Weinstein, but now I don't know that I'll listen to him any more.