Skip to main content

Videos

Overview​

This page explains the role of video evidence and analysis in the Charlie Kirk investigation. It covers the main types of footage—official production feeds, security cameras, drone footage, and eyewitness videos—and how they are used to evaluate timelines, shooter‑location theories, and claims about site changes and censorship.

Types of video sources​

Key categories of video material include:

  • Event production and TPUSA cameras – Professional footage from cameras set up near the stage and within the tent, which capture angles on Charlie, the crowd, and the immediate surroundings.
  • Security and surveillance cameras – Campus or nearby cameras positioned around UVU that may record entrances, rooftops, tunnels, and movement before and after the event.
  • Drone footage – Overhead shots from drones, where present, showing crowd layout, structures, and movement patterns.
  • Eyewitness and bystander videos – Phone recordings from attendees, often providing unique perspectives and audio that are not captured by fixed cameras.

Together, these sources form a mosaic of how the event unfolded from different vantage points.

Uses of video in analysis​

Investigators and commentators use video evidence for purposes such as:

  • Timeline reconstruction – Aligning events (arrival, speech segments, shot, response) with precise timestamps.
  • Shooter‑location testing – Comparing visual angles, muzzle flashes, and sound timing to proposed shooter positions in Shooting Locations and Tent.
  • Movement and behavior analysis – Examining the movements of specific individuals, vehicles, or security personnel before and after the shot.
  • Site‑change documentation – Comparing pre‑ and post‑incident footage to identify alterations in structures, landscaping, or equipment.

These uses make video central to both official and independent lines of inquiry.

Access, release, and censorship concerns (claims)​

Public commentary raises several concerns about how video has been handled:

  • Claims that some high‑quality institutional footage has not been fully released, or has only been shared in edited form.
  • Reports of eyewitness videos being deleted or requested to be deleted, with some individuals stating they retained copies despite such requests.
  • Allegations that certain online postings of video were removed or limited by platforms, intersecting with issues discussed in Media Censorship and Censorship.

These points remain allegations unless and until corroborated by formal records or official statements.

As more footage is authenticated and released, this section can be expanded to incorporate clearer references and links to specific video sources.