A 105-Minute Livestream Arguing The Shot Came From The Right
What This Video Is
A 1 hour 45 minute livestream by the citizen investigator George Webb, started at four in the morning Pacific time by his own account because he could not sleep on the material. It is a screen-share broadcast: he narrates over his own Substack article, over other people's video, and over a running chat window, and roughly the last hour is unstructured question-and-answer with viewers.
There is no visual description on file for this video, only a transcript, so everything below comes from what is said.
Two things need stating before the substance. First, the file sits in a folder named for the teachers' lounge, but the stream is not about that room; it is about shot geometry and the wider investigation, and it should be read accordingly. Second, the back half of the stream ranges a long way from the evidence. Substantial stretches consist of unverified allegations about named living individuals, including a serving federal official, along with speculation about private people's identities, medical matters and personal lives, expressed in terms this site will not repeat. None of that is reproduced here and none of it is endorsed. This page covers the part of the stream that engages with physical evidence.
What Is Said
Webb opens with his claim stated at maximum strength: "this conclusively proves that Charlie Kirk was shot from the right. There is no doubt that Charlie Kirk was shot from the right at this angle that you see." He places it in company, saying it matches the angle he and others discussed on the ground in Utah a week earlier and the analysis published by the former Marine sniper Zeb Boykin.
The core of the presentation is not his own work and he says so, crediting the clip to a friend and to another channel. That underlying video is a frame-by-frame annotation by a man who states his own qualifications on camera -- that he has been shot three times, knows entry and exit wounds, and has firearms training from the Marines and in civilian life. His reading: "it appears that Charlie was shot in the back, right side of his head, and the bullet exited through his neck." His stated reason for reaching it is the reaction rather than the wound: "the moment I saw the video and he tensed up, I thought, that looks like a headshot ... it is a very common occurrence with a headshot."
The supporting arguments are physical and are at least testable. On expansion: that in that short a path most projectiles would not expand, since expansion typically needs twelve to sixteen inches of tissue. On the reaction: that tensing is consistent with a spinal cord injury, compared to game animals dropping in their tracks when the spine is severed. On direction: that in one frame the skin can be seen being pushed outward before it is pierced, and that the spatter travels the same way. Webb calls that frame "absolutely conclusive", which is his characterisation and not this site's.
Against that he sets what he calls the magic bullet, meaning the trajectory the official account requires, and he makes the comparison explicit and repeatedly: that the path being described bends and turns in a way he finds impossible, as in the Kennedy case. He also says he does not rule out the accused having some role, and floats him as an accomplice rather than the shooter -- an inference, not a finding, and one he offers without evidence.
The rest of the stream is looser. He argues that citizen investigators were ahead of the federal effort on several points and scores the two efforts against each other; he criticises the resources committed to the case relative to a historical comparison; he calls for the phones, photographs and statements of everyone in the crowd to be collected; and, in a rare point of agreement with the mainstream of the case, he endorses a viewer's call for an independent autopsy. Late on he raises a lower-calibre, shorter-range weapon as more consistent with what he believes he is seeing.
What The Footage Shows
Screen shares rather than footage: his own article, the annotated frame video with its drawn-on arrows and circles, still frames paused and pointed at, and the live chat. He also refers to filming he did himself at the site.
The gap between the argument and the frames is wide and worth naming. What the annotated video shows is a low-resolution frame with lines drawn on it and a narrator saying what those lines mean. Reading skin displacement and spatter direction from consumer video at that distance is exactly the sort of analysis that requires the original file, known frame rate and calibrated measurement, none of which is in evidence here. The qualifications of the annotator are asserted on camera and not verified. The word "conclusive" appears many times in this stream and is never earned by anything on screen. That does not make the directional question wrong -- it is a serious question, taken seriously elsewhere on this site -- but it is not settled by this recording.
How It Connects
- Wound trajectory and angle is the site's own treatment of the directional question.
- Entrance or exit and shirt before blood cover the wound and staining arguments with sourcing.
- Close range theories covers the shorter-range hypothesis he raises late in the stream.
- The Mauser 30-06 rifle is the weapon the official account rests on.
- Zeb Boykin is the analyst whose work he says his own matches, and George Webb is his own profile here.
- Autopsy and wound analysis theories cover the independent examination he calls for.