People's Analysis
Every page in this section is one person's opinion. These are only people's opinions. We do want them to be able to give their opinions. This website does not take any stand behind them being true — but we do want people to challenge them and think about whether they are true or not.
Nothing in this section is a finding of this site. Read them the way you would listen to someone argue a case: work out which parts rest on a document you can check, which parts rest on a premise you are being asked to accept, and which parts are prediction.
One page per person who has given their analysis of what happened to Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025. Each page carries who they are, the video in which they make their argument, a transcript, and their position set out in attributed prose.
Contents
The people indexed here are commentators on the case, not participants in it. People who are subjects of the investigation have pages under People instead; podcasters and researchers whose work produced original findings are indexed under Influencers. What separates this section is that the unit is the argument someone is making, recorded whole, rather than a piece of evidence.
The reason to host opinions at all is that the official account of this case has been contested from the first week, and the contest has happened almost entirely in video, on platforms that delete things. Archiving what someone actually said — with the video pinned and the transcript saved — means the argument can still be examined later, by people who want to check it rather than agree with it. That cuts both ways: a claim that does not survive scrutiny is easier to retire when there is an exact record of it.
Read each page against the evidence sections. Where a speaker's argument rests on ballistics, check it against Gun & Bullet; where it rests on the timeline, check Before and After; where it rests on the case against the defendant, check Proof Not Tyler. Disagreeing with someone on this page is the intended use of it.
The Videos
Each person's video is re-hosted below, in the same order as the contents above.
PB — @PBOnPoint
9 min 53 sec · posted September 1, 2026 · original post
Recorded on a phone the afternoon of the preliminary hearing ruling, because his studio internet was down. PB argues that Tyler Robinson is a fall guy who will not receive a fair trial — "he's not getting out innocent, or he's not getting out with his life" — and says he is not convinced Robinson was even present. He names three actors he holds responsible, and rests the argument on a general premise of his own: that no assassination happens on a country's soil without that government's sanction. He closes with predictions about the next 12 to 24 months.
Everything in it is spoken assertion — no documents, no screenshots, no citations on screen. Read the full analysis and transcript →