The Drone Hypothesis: John Cullen on DarkHorse

Episode: The Inside Rail
Published: September 27, 2026
Host: Dr. Bret Weinstein
Guest: John Cullen
Podcast: DarkHorse Podcast / Inside Rail
Runtime: 2:58:46
Transcript source: SRTX transcript file, corrected

Video: Watch on YouTube
Rumble: Watch on Rumble
Audio: Listen on Spotify · Apple Podcasts

Summary

Bret Weinstein speaks with John Cullen on the subject of the unanswered questions surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Cullen is an independent investigator who writes under a pen name. Weinstein opens by saying he cannot verify who Cullen is, but that the parts of his work he has been able to check hold up.

The first half focuses on Kirk. Cullen presents flight-tracking data showing a U.S. Army HADES surveillance jet descending to about 200 feet near Utah Valley University three hours before Kirk took the stage, and again 25 minutes after he was shot. He pairs it with video he says shows fast-moving drones at the event, and proposes that the fatal shot may have come from a rifle-armed drone farther away than the official account allows, which he argues would explain the angle and the absence of an exit wound. Weinstein tests each piece: whether drones could be recovered by a jet in flight, why no witness reported seeing one, and why a round reportedly found on a nearby roof was never entered into evidence. He argues that law enforcement's apparent lack of interest in the drones is itself a question that needs an answer.

The second half turns to Las Vegas. Cullen sets out his account that the gunfire did not come from Stephen Paddock's suite, that helicopters were involved, and that the attack was aimed at Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman amid a royal succession dispute. The two also discuss the 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, the psychology of belief perseverance, and why, in Cullen's view, the most important evidence in each case goes undiscussed.

About the Guest

John Cullen is the pen name of an independent investigator who has spent nine years examining the October 1, 2017 Las Vegas shooting, and who has since investigated the early COVID outbreak, the July 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He says he writes under a pen name, as the authors of the Federalist Papers did, so that readers judge the evidence rather than the author. In this conversation he says he previously worked at Oracle and was living in Thailand at the time of the Las Vegas shooting. His work is supported through Patreon, which he says is his only source of income from it. He previously appeared on DarkHorse in July 2024.

Find John Cullen on X at @I_Am_JohnCullen and on Patreon at patreon.com/cw/IAMJOHNCULLEN.

About the Host

Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist and host of the DarkHorse Podcast, which examines science, institutions, politics, culture, and the challenges facing Western civilization. The Inside Rail is his long-form interview series.

Sponsors

• Lovebird: Delicious, nutritious cereal made with real ingredients. Go to lovebirdfoods.com/darkhorse and use code DARKHORSE for 25% off your first order.

• Mars Men: Natural testosterone booster supplement. For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off for life, free shipping, and 3 free gifts from Mars Men at Mengotomars.com.

Mentioned in This Episode

• Was Charlie Kirk Killed With a Drone? Viva Frei and Jimmy Dore on DarkHorse

• How Many Shooters? John Cullen on the Trump Assassination Attempt (July 2024)

• Multiple Shooters? John Cullen & Clay Martin (TPC #1,538)

Join Us

Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: darkhorse.locals.com

Check out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: darkhorsestore.org

Key Questions Answered in This Episode

Who is John Cullen, and why does he use a pen name?

John Cullen is the pen name of an independent investigator who began examining the 2017 Las Vegas shooting from Thailand as it unfolded. At 00:06:11 he explains the choice by pointing to the Federalist Papers: “this isn't about me. This is about what we see in the footage” Bret Weinstein opens the episode with a caveat at 00:00:40: “I don't know for sure that John Cullen is what he says he is.” He later argues at 00:13:59 that a pen name removes both a track record and reputational skin in the game, and that listeners should hold “some sort of live, updatable probability” about any source like this rather than accepting or rejecting everything.

What was the HADES spy plane doing near Utah Valley University?

John Cullen says a Pentagon-owned HADES surveillance jet, call sign Axle 10, flew from Fort Bliss toward Kalispell, Montana, on the day Charlie Kirk was shot. At 00:26:48 he describes it descending “from cruising altitude at 40,000 feet to 200 feet.” and slowing to 115 knots, “Adjacent to UVU at quarter after nine in the morning, three hours before Charlie takes the stage.” Cullen says the pilot reported a missed approach to air traffic control at Provo. Bret Weinstein notes the low pass was over the lake near campus rather than over the crowd.

Did the HADES plane return after Charlie Kirk was shot?

According to John Cullen, yes. At 00:32:29: “it returns 25 minutes after Charlie is shot and does the same thing again.” He adds that a second aircraft, Axle 21, made a similar low, slow pass near the sheriff's station in St. George the next evening as Tyler Robinson surrendered. Bret Weinstein finds it plausible that such a plane could deploy drones, but says he has a much harder time accepting that it could recover them in flight.

Were there drones at the Charlie Kirk event at UVU?

Bret Weinstein summarizes the case at 00:57:31, asking whether he is overstating it: “there were multiple UAVs at the assassination of Charlie Kirk and that they do not behave like consumer” Cullen agrees, saying the objects cross the camera's field of view in a fraction of a second. Weinstein also raises the alternative that insects close to a phone lens could be mistaken for distant drones. At 01:03:18 he calls the lack of official interest in the drones “a dog that didn't bark.” and says he wants either a conclusive explanation or a serious effort to find out who was flying them and what they recorded.

What is the Bird of Prey drone John Cullen describes?

Cullen proposes that the fatal shot may have come from an Elbit Systems Thor quadcopter carrying a Bird of Prey weapon system. At 01:12:00 he says “basically it's a sniper rifle. It's, it's accurate to 600 yards out with a 7.62 round.” and later gives its range as 600 meters (at 01:51:11). He places the hypothetical firing position above UVU's computer science building, at roughly a 10-degree angle. Weinstein asks why no one on campus reported seeing or hearing a drone large enough to carry a rifle; Cullen answers that no eyewitness reported seeing Tyler Robinson carrying a rifle either.

What was the round found on the science building roof?

A round was reportedly found on the roof of a nearby building and never entered into evidence. At 01:18:04 Bret Weinstein says “We have something either an unfired round or a spent cartridge.” The version given in testimony, as Cullen recounts it, is an unfired .223 round left by a police officer who cycled his weapon. Weinstein notes that this version is inconsistent with the drone hypothesis, but that because the round was not photographed, logged, or tied to a named officer, none of it can be checked.

What does John Cullen say happened in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting?

Cullen argues that Stephen Paddock did not fire on the Route 91 festival. At 02:01:43: “there's no gunfire coming from Mandalay Bay Room 32-135.” He says he identified helicopters flying against the regulated tour routes and absent from flight-tracking data, and at 02:05:23 that he came to believe “this was most likely an assassination attempt on MBS, staying at the Four Seasons.” He also argues that Paddock was set up by three women registered to his room, and that the suite's window was broken by police after the fact. These are Cullen's hypotheses; Weinstein presses him on how Saudi-linked helicopters could operate over Las Vegas and why American authorities would cover it up.

Does Bret Weinstein think Tyler Robinson acted alone?

He leaves the question open. At 00:19:41: “maybe it was Tyler Robinson acting alone.” He argues that DNA and other physical evidence against Robinson would exist under either hypothesis, so the anomalies still require an answer. He closes the episode at 02:58:31: “Best possible thing for America is that this was Tyler Robinson acting alone, but there's an awful lot that needs to be explained before we get there.”

Episode Chapters

00:00:00 Can You Trust a Man With a Pen Name?
00:01:39 Tyler Robinson, Acting Alone?
00:03:42 Sponsor: Lovebird Cereal
00:05:33 Why John Cullen Is Irrelevant
00:22:10 Sponsor: Mars Men
00:23:07 A Pentagon Spy Plane at UVU
00:32:24 Back 25 Minutes After the Shot
00:57:31 The Drones Nobody Wants to Explain
01:10:42 Bird of Prey: A Rifle That Flies
01:17:55 The Round Left on the Roof
01:37:34 Why Was There No Exit Wound?
01:43:27 Butler and the Spiral of Silence
01:50:42 Wouldn't Someone Have Seen It?
01:59:37 Las Vegas: No Shots From the Window
02:05:31 Was the Real Target MBS?
02:19:47 Three Women, a Minivan, 24 Guns
02:27:35 Flushing Out the Crown Prince
02:39:46 Who Broke the Window?
02:47:01 The Deadliest Gunman in History?

Search Keywords

Bret Weinstein, John Cullen, DarkHorse Podcast, Inside Rail, Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk assassination, Tyler Robinson, Utah Valley University, UVU, HADES, Army spy plane, N1098L, Axle 10, Fort Bliss, drones, UAVs, Elbit Systems, Thor drone, Bird of Prey, drone weapon, Losee Center, unfired round, exit wound, Kathryn Nester, RØDE mic, Las Vegas shooting, Route 91 Harvest, Mandalay Bay, Stephen Paddock, helicopters, Four Seasons, Mohammed bin Salman, MBS, Alwaleed bin Talal, Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia, Joe Lombardo, LVMPD, FBI, Butler, Trump assassination attempt, Eli Crane, second shooter, Dale Comstock, belief perseverance, spiral of silence, pen name, nom de plume, deep state, dogs that didn't bark

Related DarkHorse Episodes

• How Many Shooters? John Cullen on the Trump Assassination Attempt — John Cullen’s first DarkHorse appearance, July 2024, referenced at 01:48:57

• Was Charlie Kirk Killed With a Drone? Viva Frei and Jimmy Dore on DarkHorse — the earlier debate on the drone hypothesis, referenced at 02:53:04

Transcript

This transcript was prepared from the episode's speaker-labeled SRTX caption file and lightly consolidated into readable paragraphs. The source file begins at the episode's true 00:00:00 timecode, so no timestamp offset has been applied. Short clips played during the conversation are labeled as clips.

[00:00:00] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse Podcast Inside Rail. I am sitting this morning with John Cullen, who is an independent investigator who I became aware of after the Las Vegas shooting for some excellent work that we will talk about in this podcast. Now, John Cullen is not his real name. It's a pen name. And ordinarily, I probably wouldn't put somebody on who wasn't using their real name. But in this case, I think the quality of the work, whatever it is, merits our consideration. And so I will say at the outset, I don't know for sure that John Cullen is what he says he is. Maybe he's something that's been flooded into the zone to distract us. But when I look into his work and I check the elements of it that I'm capable of checking, it stands up. And I think one way or the other, this merits consideration. I will take John at his word that he's just simply investigating these things because he thinks they're important.

[00:01:15] Dr. Bret Weinstein: But please do not assume that I'm making any assumption about what it is that we're hearing. All I know is that when I see the work, it analytically adds up. And when I check the evidence that I'm capable of checking, it matches what I'm being told by John Cullen. So John Cullen, welcome to DarkHorse.

[00:01:33] John Cullen: Thank you very much. It's great to be here again.

[00:01:36] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah, it's great to have you back. Maybe we should start with Charlie, since the first anniversary of his murder is coming up, with the promise that we will go back to the Las Vegas shooting, where I think your work is at its peak. It's really, you provide a complete investigation that one can evaluate and it answers all of the questions that one might have, or almost all of them, in a very persuasive and I will say shocking way. The implications of what I think you found surrounding the shooting in Las Vegas are remarkable. The Charlie Kirk work is, I think, in progress. I think we're still discovering things and I still have lots of questions that I don't think are perfectly answered. And frankly, I think there are multiple hypotheses of the crime, what in legal context would be called theories of the crime, that are still viable at one level or another.

[00:02:48] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And I would put your model as at or near the top of the list in terms of how many questions it answers and what it assumes. It does have some pretty shocking implications. But in any case, let's present your model and you can talk about the evidence that led you there, the anomalies that maybe you're still trying to wrap your mind around. But let's bring the audience along. What is it that you see in the Charlie Kirk case? Why is this not simply a matter of Tyler Robinson acting alone, making use of liberal gun laws in the US? And taking out Charlie Kirk over anger about trans rights?

[00:03:40] John Cullen: Those are all important questions.

[00:03:42] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Our first sponsor this week is Lovebird cereal, which makes truly delicious and nutritious foods. If you have cereal in your house, go grab the box right now and read the ingredients. You're in America. There's a good chance that box of food includes refined sugars, Red No. 40, seed oils and a whole bunch of other stuff synthesized in a lab. And they don't list the pesticide residues. It's less like real food and more like a science experiment. And you're the subject. Big Food has engineered these cereals with cheap synthetic junk to drive cravings so that they can make more money. They profit at the expense of your family's health. Not so with Lovebird cereal. The founder of Lovebird cereals was inspired to take on Big Food after the birth of his daughter. Lovebird cereal contains just seven ingredients, all of which are listed directly on the front of the box.

[00:04:30] Dr. Bret Weinstein: For example, their Honey O's flavor is made with organic buckwheat, cassava, coconut, honey, coconut sugar, vanilla and sea salt. That's it. Lovebird cereals aren't only delicious, they're organic, grain free, gluten free and packed with prebiotic fiber that actually supports gut health. No refined sugar, no lab engineered natural flavors, just real ingredients the way nature intended. Lovebird is also third party tested glyphosate free, unlike 80 percent of the cereals in the market today. And being 100 percent family owned, Lovebird can follow its heart and it does. 20 percent of their profits go to fighting childhood cancer. My favorite is Cinnamon. If you're ready to take back your breakfast, go to lovebirdfoods.com/ darkhorse and use the code DARKHORSE for 25 percent off your first order. You can also find Lovebird cereals at Walmart, Whole Foods, Sprouts and other major retailers nationwide.

[00:05:26] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Lovebird cereal, join the real food revolution and take back our country's health from Big Food box by box.

[00:05:33] John Cullen: We should also address the you know, why do I use a nom de plume? We talked about that at the opening of the show. And I think it's important to talk about that because, you know, I'm a big fan of the Federalist Papers. And they were written under nom de plume. Because James Madison didn't want these thoughts, these concepts to be jaded or biased by who it was that was writing it. And I kind of came to this fray nine years ago with the Vegas shooting very much with the same idea in mind that this isn't about me. This is about what we see in the footage and whether I went to Princeton and have three PhDs or I'm a janitor at Harvard. What the hell different? What matters? What's on the video? And I don't want people to trust me. That's kind of the other aspect here. I'm not resting on my credentials. I mean, the fact that I worked at Oracle once upon a time was kind of a footnote in the early days of COVID when I realized that Johns Hopkins was using the mapping system that my team helped build when I was at Oracle.

[00:06:56] John Cullen: But it wasn't any kind of special skill that I had clicking on Hong Kong. You could click on Hong Kong. Right. Heather could click on Hong Kong. You don't need to write any Python. To go click on Shanghai. And if all you did was click on Shanghai, you'd see there were seven dead. And then you'd look and say, well, there's not 5000 dead in China. How is no one talking about that? So to me, bringing the stuff to, you know, to the forefront with a nom de plume made this not a bit. That's also why I was with the hat and the glasses. It's not about me. I'm irrelevant. You know, I got into this inadvertently, right? I mean, you know the backstory. I was in Thailand and when the Vegas shooting took place, it was 10 o'clock at night in Vegas and 10 o'clock at night in Vegas is 12 noon in Thailand. And I'm sitting in my office as it's unfolding and people are posting stuff on Facebook and Twitter in real time.

[00:08:02] John Cullen: My people were posting from their phones and I'm watching the footage. And at 1:30 a.m. Joe Lombardo comes to the microphone and tells everybody we got the guy and he's dead. And that's it. That's a lone gunman. And I'm like, what? It's a lone gunman. How did you guys figure that out in 90 minutes? You got to the roof of the Delano and the roof of the Mandalay and the roof of the Excalibur and the roof of the Tropicana. And you ruled out that there were gunmen on those roofs that fast. I found that hard to believe. And they had two automobiles. They're looking for a minivan, they were over a Hyundai, but we got one guy. And we got five room keys on the counter for one guy. And then I find out that he's got three women checked into the room with them. And this happens over a period of time. And the thing that dumbfounded me at the time that is so great to see you express some more feelings.

[00:09:06] John Cullen: So nobody talking about this. Stephen Paddock had three women registered to the room with him, Joanne, Laura and Katie. And we hear him telling the police that down in the, you know, the security room. Alex Jones mentions it once. And that's it. Nobody mentions it ever again. So I'm, you know, there's nine years ago, so I'm dumbfounded. Nobody's talking about the helicopters. Nobody's talking about all these other aspects of the shooting in Vegas. And then when we got to COVID, I'm looking at the map and there's not 10 dead in Hong Kong. There's not 10 dead in Shanghai. There's not 10 dead in Beijing and there's not 5,000 dead in China. And my team built the map. Kind of makes me a whistleblower. Except I'm not actively working there right now, right? I'm not at Oracle, but I was. Right. But to me, that's a footnote. It's like, okay, so what?

[00:10:08] John Cullen: It's not like I went in the back door of the system and, you know, dropped in some Jython and lo and behold, we found something. No, I just clicked on Hong Kong. This is four dead. And there's seven dead in Shanghai. There's not 10 dead in Beijing. There's not 5,000 dead in China. And this is the Johns Hopkins map. So I go over to the WHO map and I say, okay, come on, this can't be right. Let's go to the WHO map. Let's check the data at the WHO. So WHO says there's also not 5,000 dead in China? Okay. At the time I was introduced to Laura Ingraham at Fox News, kind of behind the scenes. Somebody reached out to me and said, Hey, you want to talk to Laura Ingraham? I said, okay, I'll talk to Laura Ingraham. And this was back in the days when I was in the hat and the hat and the sunglasses and incognito. And so Laura Ingraham and I establish a kind of back channel communications thing where I'm talking to her two, three times a day on email, easy, sometimes five times a day, seven times a day.

[00:11:10] John Cullen: And I'm sending her stuff about here's questions to ask Fauci. Ask him this, ask him that, ask him this, ask him that. And I had zeroed in on the fact that it looked like it was influenza early on. She posts on Fox News that Beijing has got less than 10 dead. Shanghai has got less than 10 dead one night. And we never saw it again on major media. And so, you know, again, for the audience, it's wondering is, is Cullen CIA? You know, where's John Kiriakou confirming all my stuff? Where's all the other CIA guys coming out and saying, Oh yeah, no, no, Cullen's, you know, he's on it, man. Yeah, that's all. Yep. Yep. Yep. That's Langley, baby. That's what we do. They avoid me like the plague. So I want, I want the audience to use their own critical thinking with each one of these things. I said, well, wait a second. Would the government pay somebody to tell us this, to tell us that this was a sortie, you know, coup d'état attempt and why are all the other CIA guys like, like, how is it that this is one guy that keeps pointing out stuff that's taboo time and time again?

[00:12:33] John Cullen: And the fact that here we are nine years into this and you're looking at the Charlie Kirk thing and you're going to the HADES stuff and you're going to these UAVs flying around and going, how the hell is this taboo? And I'm looking at this comedian, Sammy Obeid, who's Lebanese, Lebanese guy in pink pants and a green sweatshirt. And Sammy's making jokes about it. And Sammy's doing his drone joke. And he cracked open that Overton window.

[00:13:02] Sammy Obeid (clip): Meaning that allegedly Tyler was on the roof over here. But like people who've looked at something, they see some weird blurs that are going out there. They don't know what they are. I'm not going to say exactly what shot Charlie Kirk. I'm not going to drone on about it. But. Look at the slo-mo replay those videos. You see something very drone like. OK. And you also see like a mysterious aircraft flying away really quickly that could be like the mothership.

[00:13:35] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. So I want to respond to some of that. I think this is a very important conversation because people in a position like I'm in or my audience is in have to grapple with these questions. Do I have to make a judgment whether John Cullen is for real? And if I think he probably is for real, do I take everything he's saying at face value? And if I think he's probably not for real, do I ignore it all? You can't play the game that way. You have to process things and have some sort of live, updatable probability in your mind about what are the chances that John is not what he appears. And then as a second parameter, what are the chances if he is not what he appears that what he's telling me is not true? And I don't think that these things are it's not a one to one relationship there. So let me just say I understand your argument about why use a nom de plume.

[00:14:28] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You don't want who you are to matter. And scientifically speaking, it doesn't. Right. There's no part of the scientific method in which you're supposed to check somebody's credentials. It doesn't exist. So I agree with you that far. But there are other reasons to want to know who your source is. The two primary ones are if you're using a nom de plume, we don't know anything about your track record before that nom de plume. The other one is your skin in the game is different. If the John Cullen persona blows up and you disappear and restart your life as somebody else or pick up whatever life you're leading, not under your pen name, then this was cost free to you. But those of us out here who risk our reputations taking you more seriously than we should have, we pay a price that you don't share. So those two reasons, I would say, argue in the other direction.

[00:15:28] Dr. Bret Weinstein: OK, can I retort? Yeah, you want to respond to that and then I'll come to my second point.

[00:15:33] John Cullen: So as far as before I became John Cullen and before I was doing the Vegas investigation. I don't think it really matters. I've shared with the audience. I was at Oracle, right, with the map thing. But again, to me, that's still irrelevant because I don't want. My credentials to matter, all that matters to me is the evidence. And if you find the evidence that I'm putting on the table to be irrelevant or, you know, crappy, whatever it is, or my math is wrong. I invite you know, the whole point here is check my math. That's kind of the whole point of my thing is don't trust me. It's not about my credentials. I don't want you guys to assume my SQL statements are correct. And we've already found all kinds of crack-thump nonsense coming out of ChatGPT and Grok where he's getting stuff wrong all the time. And my audience checks the math. So I think the whole point here is that which you're used to.

[00:16:51] John Cullen: I play by a different set of rules. And my set of rules is who I am is nobody's business. Do you see the helicopters? Yes or no. And if you think that who I am is important. You're going to have to explain that to me because to me, I'm absolutely irrelevant in every one of these stories.

[00:17:20] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Now, you're not irrelevant in the sense that playing with one's own reputation is different than playing with something that is disposable. And so, you know, I'm putting you on because I think what you're bringing to the table is important. Would I prefer that you were I mean, you're not protecting yourself. Certainly the people who you have the most to fear from can figure out exactly who you are. You're using your own face. So you're not protected in that way, but you are insulated reputationally in a way that, you know, didn't persuade me not to put you on. But does make me wonder.

[00:18:01] John Cullen: And the truth is, it's not really about my reputation because my career is based on, you know, I'm 10 something years older than you. Right. So it's really about my adult children. And protecting their careers.

[00:18:15] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. On the CIA point, I think this one's interesting as well. I don't know what to think. I, of course, have deep concerns about the CIA and maybe more importantly, the deep state, the five eyes, all of these clandestine bureaucratic entities. I worry that they are. Literally out of control out of anyone's control because they've figured out how to effectively print money, which means that nobody can turn them off if they become dangerous. And I think they have become dangerous. That said, it would be shocking if everyone who was inside of what we call the deep state, in which some of the characters who show up on our radar are actually deep state, but in some sense, they're on the public side because they're angry about something that is taking place. That they don't think should be. So, you know, with respect to Charlie Kirk's assassination, maybe it was Tyler Robinson acting alone.

[00:19:46] Dr. Bret Weinstein: If it wasn't, and it was something where members of the deep state were aware and or participated, you can imagine other members of the deep state would be livid about that. They would be in favor of taking place. Other members of the deep state would be livid about that. They would be in favor of Charlie having lived and gone on to be whatever he was going to be and steering his organization in whatever direction he was going to steer it. And that they might be inclined in effect to whistle blow by alerting the public that something not straightforward is taking place and that we in the public would be foolish to just assume if somebody is tainted by affiliation with clandestine state level stuff, that they're necessarily lying to us. There may be a battle going on inside the deep state and we have to, I think, at least keep that possibility open in our minds.

[00:20:38] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And when I listen to people who I do suspect have connections we don't know about, my question is, is this person authentically on our team, irrespective of what they're not telling us, or is this person distracting us or flooding the zone or doing something that causes us to chase our own tails, in which case I want to discard what they're saying. So anyway, that's my complicated relationship with this question. So, you know, you do raise a question, you know, would the government pay to have a guy like John Cullen tell us what John Cullen is telling us? Well, maybe that's not how it works. Because there are rogue agencies and people within the vast cryptic deep state aren't so happy about our direction and are trying to steer the ship in a better

[00:21:33] John Cullen: direction. I wish that were true because I guarantee it pays better than Patreon. So I guarantee it. So for those of you who are not patrons, you go to patreon.com/ IAmJohnCullen to support this because my YouTube channel is not monetized. That's another thing. I didn't trust Google when I set up the YouTube channel. I wasn't going to give them my stuff, my W9. No way. So I'm not monetized on YouTube or X at all. The only place I get a paycheck from is Patreon. That's it.

[00:22:04] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And so you can totally trust Google because oh, yeah. Yeah, they don't do any evil.

[00:22:09] John Cullen: Yeah.

[00:22:10] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You're a man. Your testosterone levels are going to drop as you get older and at some point you're going to feel it. It's especially bad in a world filled with estrogenic compounds. But what can you do? I'd recommend Mars Men, which is a natural testosterone support supplement. It doesn't contain any hormones. What it does is it triggers the body to produce its own testosterone. It contains tongkat ali, shilajit, taurine, vitamin D, vitamin K1 and K2, zinc, boron and fenugreek. You take five capsules one time a day and within a few weeks you will definitely feel the difference. For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off for life plus free shipping and three free gifts at mengotomars.com. That's mengotomars.com for 50% off and three free gifts when you check out. After your purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them DarkHorse sent you.

[00:23:07] John Cullen: So let's talk about Charlie Kirk. So let's talk about that.

[00:23:09] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah.

[00:23:09] John Cullen: Yeah. All right. There you go. And so again, the overarching thing is, you know, do I work for the CIA or whatever, uh, you know, love to have a chat with Kiriakou and watch him melt away. All right. So story after story, case after case for the last nine years, whether it's Las and helicopters and a coup d'état, which we'll get to after Charlie Kirk in a second or the COVID outbreak and the map and Hong Kong and Shanghai and the bird flu, and then the meteor crater. Right. These things are taboo and yet there's a meteor crater in Nigeria. Nobody wants to talk about it, but it's a meteor crater in Nigeria. Like it's real, but it's taboo. And so case after case after case after case, we get to Charlie Kirk. And what do we find out? Well, we find out early on in the Charlie Kirk thing that there's a Pentagon HADES spy plane at the scene of the crime, the morning of it taking place.

[00:24:13] John Cullen: And if that was all that had happened, that might just be happenstance. All right. The HADES was there that morning. Nine o'clock came in. Did a little, did a little whoopie thing came down low and flew up to Montana.

[00:24:28] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. Wait, wait, wait. I want to slow you down. A HADES spy plane is basically a business jet that has been configured for surveillance, military activity, uh, and sold to consumers, you know, to state level consumers, the Pentagon, the ones are the one in question. Near UVU on the day Charlie was assassinated was Pentagon owned.

[00:25:03] John Cullen: So they're owned by the Pentagon and managed by a company called Lassai aviation, which is a subsidiary of Leidos. Leidos is the new name for what used to be SAIC and SAIC is a well-known contractor for the government for many, many years. So they manage the airplane. In other words, the Army owns it, but the Army pays Leidos to clean it, fuel it, vacuum it, empty the porta-potty. I don't know. They, they got to maintain it. And the Army doesn't want guys in BDUs doing that. So they pay Leidos to do that.

[00:25:44] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. But the, the pilots are Pentagon.

[00:25:47] John Cullen: We don't know necessarily because the program hasn't yet gone active. So, excuse me. So that that's a potential that that's a question mark. Still were the pilots Leidos pilots or were the pilots Air Force, Army, CIA? Again, it says U.S. Army on the side of the plane. Okay. Right.

[00:26:07] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. So you have a single Pentagon owned. HADES business jet reconfigured for military purposes that flew out of where that day.

[00:26:24] John Cullen: It leaves Fort Bliss, which is in El Paso, Texas. Okay. And it's headed. Why is that a Texas? Go ahead. It's heading towards Kalispell, Montana, which is Glacier National Park. Right. It's right at the border with Canada and it's cruising at rough and tough 40,000 feet as it leaves Fort Bliss. And it descends from cruising altitude at 40,000 feet to 200 feet. And it slows down to 115 knots. Adjacent to UVU at quarter after nine in the morning, three hours before Charlie takes the stage.

[00:27:07] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. Hold on. 40,000 feet is very, very high. It must be near the ceiling of what that airplane can handle. Is that right?

[00:27:17] John Cullen: I've seen them at 43.

[00:27:20] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. But it's up there near the top. Yes. Yes. Yes. And 200 feet is stupid low.

[00:27:26] John Cullen: It's on approach. Right. So that's a yeah, you better be on approach with gear down. Yes.

[00:27:32] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. So first of all, 40,000 feet. This is not a jumbo jet. This is a business jet size critter at 40,000 feet. Is it visually apparent to somebody standing on the ground who happens to be looking up and is it audible?

[00:27:54] John Cullen: No, it's, it's what you see when you look up and you think they're, you know, people think they're doing chem trails and it's really contrails. Yeah. That's 40,000 feet.

[00:28:04] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Right. A little jet like this, I'm just trying to figure out

[00:28:08] John Cullen: unless it's leaving a contrail, you don't see it. No. Would you hear it? You probably hear it. You'd hear it after it's long gone because by the day. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:28:17] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. But it's not, it's not effectively stealth to the unaided eye on the ground, but it's, it's inconspicuous.

[00:28:25] John Cullen: Yeah. 40 something thousand feet. Yeah.

[00:28:27] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah. Okay. So then it comes down to 200 feet. Adjacent UVU. You say adjacent because if you look at the map, we'll put this up. It's flying over the lake that is near the UVU campus as it descends to 200 feet. So it's not flying at 200 feet over anybody's head, unless somebody was out in a boat, which they may well have been. Um, but from the point of view of people on the ground, it would not have been, Hey, what's that jet flying at just over my head because it's over the water.

[00:29:03] John Cullen: And it's in the flight path of the airport at Provo. So it looks like it's coming into Provo to land, but it's going to Kalispell, Montana. So what is it coming into Provo to land?

[00:29:16] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So the, I don't know about the military in general, general aviation, you'd file a flight plan, which would say where you intended to put down, whether you were putting down to pick up fuel or for whatever reason. Does this aircraft have a flight plan that we have access to?

[00:29:37] John Cullen: I don't know that the, in other words, we see it in the ADS-B thing that's going for a ballistic Kalispell. It never touches down. So it doesn't go wheels down in Provo, but it makes this type of maneuver regularly. In other words, this is a classic maneuver that these HADES planes, excuse me, do in practice. We see them doing it in the days and weeks before at different locations.

[00:30:07] Dr. Bret Weinstein: That's interesting. Okay. So it does it at different locations. Are the locations where it does it in any way regular or we just, it's like, Hey, it's doing it again.

[00:30:18] John Cullen: So the, so there's regular aspects. The aspects are it often does it near a small regional airport so that it looks like it's an aborted landing and then it takes up and goes away. So it gets into the, you know, it gets into the traffic pattern. It does it at like Amarillo, Texas. Right. So it's doing it in regional airports. Um, it did it out in Lake Havasu City. Yeah. So it's going to sort of, uh, you know, C-tier places. Um, also where the communications with the air traffic control are probably not being recorded. The communications with air traffic control and Provo were recorded. And I have that, that communication between the pilot and the tower.

[00:31:11] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Got it. Okay. So three hours before Charlie is shot, this Pentagon owned HADES plane descends to 200 feet over the lake adjacent UVU as the crow flies, how far from the place where Charlie was shot was this 200 foot, uh, segment of the flight.

[00:31:35] John Cullen: I think it's less than two miles as the crow flies. Less than two miles.

[00:31:41] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So that's not a lot of distance in, in a drone space.

[00:31:45] John Cullen: So if a drone is flying 60 miles an hour, it can cover two miles in two minutes.

[00:31:51] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yep. Okay. So three hours before it descends to 200 feet. How long is it down at 200 feet?

[00:32:00] John Cullen: Uh, just on the approach. So basically along the length of Lake Utah, it's at this slow thing. And you'll see that when you post this image with the 3D, I made like a 3D, it looks like of it coming in and dipping down. And you'll see it's basically all along the lake. It's low. It gets real low right in front of the airport. There's a marsh and then it's out of there. Now the thing that's really odd is that it returns 25 minutes after Charlie is shot and does the same thing again.

[00:32:37] Dr. Bret Weinstein: 25 minutes after Charlie Kirk is shot in broad daylight, the same plane descends to 200 feet in the same location, adjacent UVU two minutes by drone by 60 mile per hour drone from the UVU campus. Correct. Now, do we have the claim of an aborted landing? Or is that speculation?

[00:33:07] John Cullen: No, they, so in the communications between, um, it's, it's, uh, Axle 10 is the call sign, um, the registration is N1098L. And then the communications with the air traffic control tower, they call it a missed landing and they say, well, we'll call it a missed, a missed approach. And basically, you know, it means we weren't lined up right or, you know, what have you, I'm not a pilot, but they call it a missed approach. And the, you know, instead of going around and landing again, they take off and go to, you know, go back to Fort Bliss.

[00:33:40] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. So they did, they called it a missed landing twice that day. Correct. Then the three hours before and the 25 minutes after they come down to 200 feet and what did you say? 135 knots, 115 knots, 115 knots. So at about as slow as you can go without stalling out of the sky. Yes. Um, they report to air traffic control, missed landing, and then I'm not a pilot either, but it's really strange to miss a landing and not go around because usually you're landing for a reason. And the fact that you missed, it doesn't take care of whatever the reason was. So you go around and then you put the plane down and you do whatever you were going to do and you take off. So to miss two landings in one day at the same airport and not complete either of those landings is anomalous in and of itself.

[00:34:37] John Cullen: Except, let me give you a benevolent explanation though. Okay. Except for the fact that they do this all the time, but they rarely do it in the same place twice in a given day. In other words, if they're doing an Amarillo rarely will they then go fly to Louisiana and then back to Amarillo and do it again. So seeing them do it twice in the same day in the same place is rare.

[00:35:01] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. So hold on a second. You say a benevolent explanation. I appreciate the thought. What, what is the benign explanation for this weird behavior? It is not to me an explanation that this type of aircraft does this all the time, unless the business version of this aircraft craft does this all the time too, which I assume it doesn't. No, of course not. Okay. So the point is there's something about this military version, the HADES version of this aircraft that does this behavior. And then presumably the aircraft is no harder to land than any other. We know that because the business version is put down regularly all the time. So the, what we know in the public is these aircraft descend to altitudes like this and speeds like this all the time. They don't land. And in the cases where we have air traffic interaction, they then lie about it. They say it was a missed landing.

[00:36:04] Dr. Bret Weinstein: It doesn't make sense that it's a missed landing again, particularly because landing they'd put it down.

[00:36:08] John Cullen: And the thing that's kind of odd is they're descending from 40,000 feet or so. And then on the return trip, when they come back from Kalispell, they don't go all the way to 40,000, they go to like 37 or 38,000 feet and they stop at 37,000. The moment that Charlie Kirk takes the stage, it starts to descend. And the, and the moment he's shot at 12:23 p.m. local time, which is mountain daylight time, the plane then begins its rapid descent to 200 feet. Literally the moment he shot at 12:23, we watch, watch the altitude go down. And it returns to the scene of the crime. Literally 25 minutes after he is shot adjacent.

[00:36:58] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. Now, of course, everybody will understand that what you are. Hypothesizing is that the plane descended to 200 feet and 115 knots to deploy some fancy drones, which we will get to in a couple of minutes here, and then descended again to collect them. Now I will tell you, I have a much easier time. Stomaching the idea that it descended to deploy drones than I do that. It descended to pick them up. Me too. I agree with you. Um, and the reason for that is because look, I know what a sophisticated lay person might know about airplanes and drones. I find it very easy to imagine that you can dump fancy military drones out of the back of pretty much any airplane that can slow down to 115 knots. Have them withstand being dumped into air, moving at a very lower speed, and then deploy their own propellers or whatever, and go do their thing. Much harder to imagine those drones being able to accelerate and reboard themselves.

[00:38:21] Dr. Bret Weinstein: That's not an easy maneuver. I mean, if you just think about, you know, like these HADES planes, I believe have a big hatch in the back that can be opened.

[00:38:30] John Cullen: It's right underneath the belly between the landing gear. We've got photos of it now with the hatch open.

[00:38:37] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah. Okay. So if you imagine drones, a it's hard to imagine they can go 115 knots. B if they can go 115 knots, it's really hard for me to imagine that they can endure the jet wash, substrate and stabilize themselves to get back on board a business jet in flight. I agree with you. So anyway, this is to me, uh, an unanswered, an unanswered question about this, this, this theory of the crime as it would be said legally.

[00:39:17] John Cullen: So what it, what it poses then is if they're not collecting these units that we see, well then what are they doing? Are they gathering other data or are they confirming, are they actually pinging data from the hospital and not the crime scene has nothing to do with them? You know, I don't know. I simply look at the evidence, put it on the table. To base kind of a straw man hypothesis around it until we get more evidence that helps us refine the hypothesis. And this seems to be something that the public struggles with. The public wants to know what happened. The public wants a microwave oven version of the story, right? If it's not ready in 90 seconds, you know, they're on to the next thing. And that's not how these complicated things work. Right. I didn't, you know, you've got to gather evidence, gather evidence. And so for example, in the case of the Las Vegas shooting, it wasn't until the case, the night of the long knife, when MBS rounded everybody up at the Ritz Carlton, that I realized what it was and, and how it all came together based on that event, similarly with the Charlie Kirk thing.

[00:40:35] John Cullen: I mean, I, I was contacted by Joe Kent less than a week after Kirk was killed. And Joe and I had talked about the Butler thing, right? So after I was on your show, I guess he saw me on your show or whatever. And he wanted to talk to me. So Joe Kent reached out to me about Butler, but then when Kirk was killed, he sent me a note and says, can we talk about Kirk? And this was less than a week after. And so he and I talked before the memorial service. So, you know, this was within a week. We didn't yet have the Gaza peace deal. And when the Gaza peace deal came to be less than a month later, it for me was like the night of the long knife. I was like, Oh man, are you kidding me? So again, it's a straw man hypothesis. It doesn't mean that's what happened. Yeah. But when you see the Pentagon appears to be engaged in this, it's not engaged in this, I put these straw man hypothesis out like a, like a, like a, like a voodoo pin doll in other words.

[00:41:44] John Cullen: Okay. So here's one, right? Here's an idea. Charlie Kirk was a Syrian spy. Okay. It's insane. It doesn't make any sense. He's obviously not a Syrian spy, but if he was, that might explain the use of force here, send a message to the other countries in the mid-east. How dare you? You got one of your spooks into the oval. I'm looking for some explanation as to why the Pentagon is involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk. I mean, I'm already to that point. In other words, to me, there's no question of the involvement. This is, and then we find out that the sister ship to HADES, the other HADES. There's an axle 10 and there's an axle 21. Well, the sister ship was in St. George the next evening, 33 hours later when Tyler Robinson turned himself in and it does the same maneuver, comes down now, not, not to 200 feet, but I think it came down as low as it dared in this valley and slowed to 125 knots adjacent to the sheriff station at nine o'clock as Tyler Robinson is surrendering.

[00:43:04] John Cullen: This is the next day.

[00:43:06] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yep. I don't know what to make of that. I get the anomaly, but I don't see an obvious explanation for it. I want to push back on your term straw man hypothesis. I would say proof of concept hypothesis. These are hypotheses that you don't think have any actual chance of being right, but they prove that something could inhabit that space. You're not violating some law of physics or something. You say, if this were true, then then it would explain these events. Therefore, something can be true that explains them. Now let me ask you a little bit about, I think I'm glad we're talking about the um, improbability of drones being able to reboard a, uh, a HADES spy plane. Is there something that could account for this? I'll give you a couple that I'm just coming up with off the top of my head and I'll ask you if we know of any such thing. Is it possible that that plane, these drones don't have to survive the reentry.

[00:44:14] Dr. Bret Weinstein: They're just a budget item. And so all they have to do is be collected. They don't have to be collected and reused. Is it possible that's, that's something, you know, could a net with a weighted net be deployed below that door and then be deployed? And basically the plane, you know, the drone hover in the path of the plane so that the plane would collect the drones and no evidence would be left anywhere. Um, in a destructive fashion. Does that exist?

[00:44:49] John Cullen: I'm not sure about the net concept, but I have seen these drone recovery systems are already in production that use a ball. It's like a steel ball. Um, about the size of a cannonball on a wire. The plane lowers the ball down and then the drone has what looks like a fork and the balls hanging down, the drone comes and grabs it and then closes the fork on back onto the body and the balls kind of encapsulate and then it just winches it back into the plane. So I've seen the technology, but I think your point is, is, is important, which is whether or not HADES recollected the UAVs 25 minutes later or has to be within a 10 mile radius to hit the self-destruct button. We don't know what the, it doesn't, what matters is it's there. What matters is the Pentagon's most precious ISR asset is at the scene of Charlie Kirk's murder twice and the sister ship.

[00:45:53] John Cullen: The other one is at the scene of Tyler Kirk surrender the next day. What's the name? Tyler Robinson. Tyler Robinson surrender the next day. Yep. So we've got three, three appearances.

[00:46:07] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So, okay. I like your second hypothesis that self-destruct is sufficient. Self-destruct is particularly good if it's at some random location over the land, because of course you, you, you're not going to have a perfectly effective destruction, especially in light of the fact that a part of an element of your hypothesis of the crime involves a seven, six, two rifle that would be effectively possible to completely destroy with anything that a drone would be carrying. It could be maybe broken up, but, but if you triggered a self-destruct over the lake, you know, imagine that the plane is in a position to figure out where the boats are on the lake and pick a location that there's nobody there and cause the drones to self-destruct and sink into the water where they won't be found. That would be pretty clean.

[00:47:11] John Cullen: I don't know, but what I can tell you is that the net, so that morning of the 11th. So in between Charlie Kirk getting killed, HADES goes back to Fort Bliss the morning of the 11th before Tyler Robinson surrenders. Axle 21, which is the one that goes to St. George and the third plane is Axle 90. Axle 90 is not a HADES plane. It's an ARES plane. It's the previous generation. It's a Global 6000, not a 6500, also Bombardier, but it's sort of the first generation. Well, they fly together a lot. We see Axle 21 and Axle 90 tandeming up and flying all over the place together quite a bit. And on the morning of the 11th, they fly out past San Diego, out past Catalina together, and they go hundreds of miles offshore. And then Axle 90 begins to descend from 40,000 feet to 8,000 feet, and then they drop off of the transponder. They're off transponder for about 30 minutes and then they come back.

[00:48:18] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So they have had, they have to at that distance from shore, they would have to turn off their transponder so as not to show up.

[00:48:25] John Cullen: I don't know, but they, you know, you're watching the feed and then they just disappear. They're gone for about 30 minutes and then you see them coming back. They go back to, I think they go back to Fort Bliss and then they go and do it again. They go out to the ocean twice, hundreds of miles offshore and come back. And then Axle 21 goes to St. George and Axle 90 goes back to base.

[00:48:53] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And how common is that behavior?

[00:48:55] John Cullen: Doesn't look very common. And the fact that Axle 21 is up in St. George at nine o'clock at night, local time. So I think Fort Bliss and Utah are in the same time zone. So it's up there doing maneuvers at 9 p.m. It's not working hours. These guys aren't usually out there doing stuff at nine o'clock at night. And they go out hundreds of miles over the ocean the day after Charlie's killed. So that behavior leads me to believe that would have been the dump if they've gotten.

[00:49:30] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah. So then you need you need a collection mechanism and a dump run hundreds of miles out with either having flown out beyond transponder range. And I'd love to know whether transponder range is a thing in this case or whether they had to actually turn the transponder off.

[00:49:49] John Cullen: I don't know. I'm sure there's you know, there's probably commercial and military pilots watching that will be able to answer in the comments section and let us know. So basically these guys are hundreds of miles offshore. They fly out, you know, past Catalina and the islands out there and then poof, they disappear. But right before they disappear, Axle 90 shows it's at eight thousand something feet, not forty thousand. I'm like, oh, you son of a gun. Look at what you're doing. You're going for the dip and they turn the transponder off after we see that it's down at eight thousand feet. So again, I don't know what they're doing, but what this for me, it just doesn't this warrant further investigation? Shouldn't shouldn't somebody other than you, me and Jimmy Dore be talking about this?

[00:50:41] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So let me ask you a couple of questions. On the one hand. Why wouldn't you drop it from high elevation? On the other hand, you have to depressurize the plane to open that door. All right.

[00:50:58] John Cullen: And you're going five hundred knots if you're at forty thousand feet. And if you're going to slow down, you're going to lose altitude. So but like you said, if you're going to destroy this stuff and you don't really care, you're trying to break it up, you know, why not open the doors at forty thousand? I guess it's because it, you know, maybe the doors don't really survive that. That's again, I don't know. Yeah, I'm not a HADES expert. Yeah, I'm not. Again, this is why I want the audience to

[00:51:22] Dr. Bret Weinstein: you guys in the neighborhood. You probably can't open the door. There's there's some ceiling for being able to open that door. It's probably pretty low in light of it. Probably breaks the pressurization.

[00:51:40] John Cullen: And it will be going slow. I mean, we keep seeing it at one hundred and fifteen hundred twenty hundred twenty five knots. There's a reason they're doing that. They're obviously not landing. So are these guys, you know, deploying these drones all over the place? And are they, you know, they also do it frequently near lakes? You know, if there's a body of water, you know, I've seen them do it out. I think it was by Snakehead Lake or something like that. So they've been practicing this maneuver. This is kind of their thing.

[00:52:08] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Well, I will also point out I'm trying to remember where I saw it. There is a history in military aviation of attempts to create a flying aircraft carrier. I remember seeing some black and white film of planes with like it'll be funny to see whether my recollection is accurate. But my recollection is that basically you had a bunch of little primitive fighter planes that had the equivalent of a giant hook eye sticking off the top and they could fly under the belly of the flying aircraft carrier and basically put the eye over a hook and then the aircraft carrier would pull them up into the belly somehow. So people have been playing with these ideas of deploying flying, deploying aircraft from other aircraft and recovering them forever. You know, aviation only goes back to 1903, but somewhere in, I think it must have been World War Two era, they were playing with ideas like this.

[00:53:22] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And the idea that drones make a lot of things that weren't practical before. Practical for new purposes is clear. And OK, so you've got a bunch of planes that do this weird maneuver. They descend to 200 feet. They slow way the hell down and they lie to air traffic control about missing landings. And that makes a pretty good argument for one of the things they might be doing is they might be the drone platform for special operations of some kind. Right. One of which apparently took place adjacent UVU on the day Charlie was assassinated with a descent three hours before and 20 minutes after the shot. That's pretty conspicuous.

[00:54:10] John Cullen: I think so. And I think it's made more conspicuous by the appearance of the sister ship the next day in St. George. Any one of these appearances by itself. You know, we would kind of shrug our shoulders and you know, I don't know that that's something. But when it comes back the second time and does the same thing. Twenty five minutes after he's killed and then its sister ship goes to St. George, then when he's turned himself in, it's nine o'clock. I mean, it's like everything is car awaiting in a way that's really uncomfortable. And so that again, it comes back to so then why is it that only you, Jimmy Dore, me and Sammy Obeid talking about this? Nobody else finds this kind of odd.

[00:55:01] Dr. Bret Weinstein: I will add one other thing here that. I think we will likely never know, but 25 minutes after Charlie Kirk is shot, the chances that it is known on board that aircraft that Charlie Kirk has been shot are very high.

[00:55:20] John Cullen: It appears so because it begins its descent the moment he shot. 12:23 is when it begins.

[00:55:27] Dr. Bret Weinstein: But even if that weren't true, let's suppose that these guys were doing maneuvers that just coincidentally happened to be near UVU. The nature, you know, this. It seems to me highly likely that it will have been conveyed from the ground. And. You know, it's idle speculation at some level, we don't need to know, but the point is continuing to behave in an anomalous secret way, given that they lie about the failed landings in that location is a choice if you know that there has just been a event that has taken place, you know, right where you were. So anyway, I'd be interested if you know.

[00:56:14] John Cullen: Well, I think again, so like I said, if HADES was there that morning, that quarter after nine, and that was it. That's all there was to it. Didn't come back later the day. There was no HADES in St. George the next day. I don't know that it would be that big a deal. The fact that it comes back the same day, the fact that it is then in St. George doing a similar maneuver and the fact that we see UAVs at the venue is what makes the whole thing absurd. It's like, how are we not, if there were no UAVs assume there's no UAVs, we don't see anyone. Well, then this is again, I'm. Okay. It was coincidence. I don't know, but maybe they were just listening and watching.

[00:57:09] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. So hold on. The UAVs at the event. I'm going to want you to talk about your hypothesis of what exactly they were and how that might relate to the crime. But I believe that what you have presented establishes to a high degree of certainty. You tell me if I have it, if I'm overstating anything here. That there were multiple UAVs at the assassination of Charlie Kirk and that they do not behave like consumer

[00:57:40] John Cullen: drones. Correct. And I can say that with authority. So even though I use a nom de plume, I've owned DJI drones. So I can tell you with authority, I've owned Phantom, Mavic. Um, they even had a DJI Inspire. Um, so, you know, I'm a pretty decent drone pilot. Okay. They're not, those are not DJI. I mean, these things, these things are covering in three to five frames of video. Right. So that's three thirtieth's of a second to five thirtieth's of a second. Right. So it's one sixth of a second and it's crossing the entire field of view. In a fraction of the second. And then you look down at the people. And the people have barely taken half a step. Their left leg and their left knee hasn't caught up to their right knee and the drone is gone.

[00:58:38] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah. So this is too fast.

[00:58:39] John Cullen: Unbelievably fast, like hard to believe how fast they're going. It's kind of crazy. Yeah.

[00:58:44] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Here's the, here's the thing I want to drill down on. I believe that one of the anomalies when we get a. Faked event where we're given an official story and there's some other. Elaborate story. The official story is hiding a much more elaborate story. There are drones, there are dogs that didn't bark. The dogs that didn't bark at the Charlie Kirk assassination include the fact that there were apparently very fancy drones at the event. Let's say they were uninvolved in the assassination. They should still be a focus of law enforcement, figuring out who had drones in the air, what did those drones see? You know, one thing that drones do is they take high quality video for many, many purposes. Maybe somebody, first of all, you can't even own a DJI drone without registering with the FAA. Whereas at the FCC. Um, and so the point is okay. Maybe they didn't register.

[00:59:51] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. Then they were breaking the law. It's one or the other. You either had a registered drone or you were breaking the law. If, and you were probably, if you did have a registered drone, breaking the law, because you weren't supposed to be flying over that event, if my understanding is correct. So. Suffice it to say either the evidence that the drones were in the air is anomalous in some way, I know you're going to rule this out, but something like an insect flying close to the cell phone camera looks like a drone far away and we've mistaken it. But if the evidence holds up that there were actually drones in the air at that event, who was flying those drones and what exactly those drones saw is very important evidence. The prosecutors should be obsessed with finding that evidence because it's going to convict their furry-loving guy on the roof to the extent that there is a complete lack of interest in the drones, because of course we already know who did it is insane.

[01:00:56] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You're trying to convict the guy. You want all of the, if he did it, you want all of the evidence because all evidence will point to him. How is it that you're not obsessed with figuring out whose drones those were and getting whatever footage they might've taken?

[01:01:11] John Cullen: And yet it was Kathryn Nester, the defense attorney for Tyler Robinson, that brings up the drones. She asks one of the investigating officers. Were there drones there that day? And he says, no. And then later she asks him again and she said, did you become aware that Georgia goes, yeah, I found out there were. So the police didn't have any drones. The university didn't have any drones. There were no other law enforcement agencies there. And, you know, clearly we see stuff that, you know, we see insects. We see a loss. I see dragonflies, um, you know, there's bugs all over the place. And then there's things that are moving across the field of view so fast. And they're not close to the lens. In other words, you can see that, you know, where they are, they're in the distance, they're in, you know, deep in, in the frame. There's so many appearances.

[01:02:09] John Cullen: It's not like there's one or two. It's not like, you know, we got one or two of these things and they kind of look like drones. We've got wasps. We've got dragonflies. I've got what I think is a blue heron, right? So we've got birds. I got bugs. And then I got things that are clearly not organic and that are flying way too fast. And so your question is, all right, well, are any of them filming anything? And if so, can we please see the footage? My question is, are these guys related to the HADES aircraft? Because if so, that means that the Pentagon seems to have known a hell of a lot too much here. How did the Pentagon assume again, assume it's still benign, assume that the drones didn't kill anybody? So they're just watching, photographing how they know to be there.

[01:03:07] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. Now let's talk about, so I will just call it right now. The lack of discussion over the drones that were apparently there is a dog that didn't bark. I either want something conclusive that says, no, the evidence that there was drones there is not reliable. Here's the explanation for what you're seeing or absolute fascination with who was flying those drones and whether they took any footage because we are starved for evidence here. We have that one stupid CCTV, uh, video of Tyler Robinson on the roof. But it's how much better off would we be if we had actual high quality footage from a different vantage point that, you know, captured the shot itself, for example, the weapon.

[01:03:59] John Cullen: So, you know, the rifle would be great.

[01:04:02] Dr. Bret Weinstein: I don't, I cannot fathom why if the drones actually existed, why there wouldn't be absolute fascination with whatever they may have captured. Much as, much as I would point out the RØDE mic that Charlie was wearing. Let's just leave it as a RØDE mic. If it was a RØDE mic doing what the RØDE Wireless PRO does, then it will have sent a wireless transmission of audio to one of the cameras or a soundboard. And it will have recorded a much higher quality piece of audio on the mic itself. So another dog that didn't bark is you say the mic didn't explode. Let's take you at your word. Where the hell is it? Where the hell is it? And where are the two files? The one that it sent to the camera or soundboard and the one, the 32-bit float file that it recorded on the box itself. Another dog that didn't bark is well, that doesn't matter. Um, okay.

[01:05:07] John Cullen: To me again, I think the presence of the UAVs is made that much more poignant by the presence of HADES and vice versa. So again, if all we had was just weird footage of UAVs flying around, it could be the UVU drone club. There's a bunch of geeks with a drone club that build a hundred mile an hour drones there. There's a legit drone club at UVU.

[01:05:35] Dr. Bret Weinstein: That does exist. Yes. Yeah, absolutely. They, they, they build drones that could fly at the speed.

[01:05:40] John Cullen: I don't know about 200 miles an hour, but a hundred. Yeah. Easy, easy a hundred. Yeah. Okay. But, but with all this stuff that we've been doing in the last year, where's the UVU drone club kids coming forward and say, Oh no, dude, that was us. No, we got, we got the footage here. We know here. I got this. Yeah, we were moving pretty fast, but yeah, that was us. Where are all those kids? They didn't come forward. There's no footage.

[01:06:04] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So. They didn't come forward. I would say we're at the UVU drone club. They'd probably be in big trouble for having had drones in the air over civilians at the event. On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine that you're a member of this drone club, you have your drones in the air for what turns out to be a historic assassination and you are not moved by patriotism or just the fact that you have a piece of this story to tell. Frankly, you know, I'd, if I was in that club, I'd take the hit from the university and say, yeah, we were breaking the rules, but we do have, you know, we do have a story to tell that nobody else has pivotal footage.

[01:06:59] John Cullen: Pivotal footage. Right.

[01:07:01] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And I, and I will tell you. If the, if those kids are, are the guilty party with respect to those drones in the air, they need to come forward in order that people like you and I know that we have to reevaluate this set of drone questions. They don't want to leave that open as a gaping wound for future generations to wrestle with. They should settle the question of what they had in the air, whether there were things that they saw in the air that they weren't responsible for. And if they did come forward, I would certainly go to bat for them. Any trouble that they're in, I would argue. Okay. Look, guys do stuff. They break the rules. They break the law. It's not a good thing that they do, but following your patriotic duty and filling in pieces of this puzzle, uh, is an honorable thing to do. And I will go to bat for them with, you know, all the power at my disposal.

[01:08:01] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So that they don't get scapegoated.

[01:08:03] John Cullen: How cool or interesting or wild and scary would it be if it was both? What if they came forward and said, Hey, we saw your conversation and we were there, man, that was us, but there were three others that weren't and we're scared and we're scared out of our minds. We were there. That was us. And there were three other units that were not us. And we don't know what to do. I mean, imagine that, right? Imagine that's the story. So all of these, this is what I mean. America wants answers, chop, chop, chop. And because these things are coverups and we're dealing with that agency with unlimited funds, as you've pointed out, they figured out, they just call Scott Bessent, and I need another pallet.

[01:08:56] Dr. Bret Weinstein: We don't even need to, they don't even need to. It's just wire state. Yeah. The state has access to all.

[01:09:02] John Cullen: But pallets are cool. Pallets are cool. Printing money, shipping a pallet. Everybody loves pallets of cash. And the fact that the CIA can simply call Bessent and say, Hey, we need another pallet and we need it delivered here because we're not on the gold standard. We just print money. We're just printing.

[01:09:22] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And you know, I think you're on the wrong. I think you're on the wrong track here.

[01:09:25] John Cullen: Okay.

[01:09:26] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Because if we are talking about the deep state or some, something related to it, it has access to information that allows it to print money without having to ask anyone. Oh, that's probably true.

[01:09:41] John Cullen: I I'm talking about hard smelling money coming out of the treasury. That's what I like. Those pallets. I'm really a big fan of pallets of cash. That's, that's my thing.

[01:09:50] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah. But on the other hand, if you know what trades are about to happen, you could print your own money. That's effectively. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, that that's my expectation is that you have programs that can't be shut down because the people who run them have liberated themselves from the power of the purse.

[01:10:09] John Cullen: Let's talk about, let's talk about this notion of. Where does this go? Where does this lead potentially? If in fact there's Pentagon involvement, right?

[01:10:25] Dr. Bret Weinstein: If in fact, before, before we do that, I think we need to flesh out the drones themselves. You present, you present a model of what you think the likely drones involved were. And to me, they answer certain questions and raise others. So do you want to tell us about that?

[01:10:42] John Cullen: Well, originally I just started looking into are there drones that can kill people? And I found a particular unit. This was a year ago from a company in Israel called Elbit. And they made a thing called the Lanius and the Lanius basically can fly around outside, inside, hunt people down, target them and kill them. But it doesn't fly over a hundred miles an hour. And so it wasn't what we were seeing necessarily, but it established there are tactical drones that are not flying hand grenades. So, you know, there's this notion of a drone that flies and explodes and that's that, and, you know, it doesn't return home.

[01:11:25] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Kamikaze drone.

[01:11:26] John Cullen: Yeah, that's not what these are. These are tactical drones. And so when I went back and started researching Elbit again to see if there was a newer version of the Lanius or what else they had, I came across this thing called the Bird of Prey and the Bird of Prey mounts on their Thor drone. And their Thor drone is their most developed drone. It's the one they've sold the most of. And when you mount a Bird of Prey underneath a Thor, you have the ability to shoot a, basically it's a sniper rifle. It's, it's accurate to 600 yards out with a 7.62 round. So the round is like a .308. It's the NATO equivalent. It's 7.62 by 51 millimeters. And if a shot was taken from a flying drone of that nature, it can be 600 yards away, which is over a quarter of a mile. So if it's a quarter of a mile away and it's suppressed, I don't know that anybody's going to see it.

[01:12:38] John Cullen: Nobody's going to hear it. It comes in. It does what it needs to do. And the question then is, are these little drones that we see flying around in the vicinity, we see them by the tent, you know, they're flying over the tent around the tent, going this way, going that way. And I go really fast. Are they there to look at the target figure it? Cause if they do facial recognition and they eye, and it's all autonomous, by the way, it's all autonomous. So you, you give it a picture of me and you tell it, find this guy and kill him. And it will find me in a crowd, target me, and then have the other unit fire. In other words, it's going to put a dot on me from a closer up drone. That's 30, 40, 50 feet away. It'll put a dot on me. That's not visible to the naked eye. You won't see it standing there in the audience, but a camera with an infrared lens is going to see that dot and that dot only.

[01:13:41] John Cullen: It then aims the rifle at the dot and puts the bullet on the dot. And we see, we see a dot on Charlie Kirk's chin and infrared dot.

[01:13:53] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Uh, what, so that doesn't show up in iPhone footage, presumably doesn't show up in most cell phone footage. What does it show up in?

[01:14:02] John Cullen: Older phones that do not have good infrared filters. So the higher end iPhones and Samsungs, they spend more money on the infrared filter, older phones and cheaper phones do not.

[01:14:18] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So I think I can speak a little bit to this. I did some infrared work when I was studying bats and I used, uh, surveillance cameras, which see infrared, and I used infrared illuminators from television remotes to illuminate bats in a way that they couldn't see. And I couldn't see, but I could record what they were doing as if it was in broad daylight. And so there's an IR cut filter that you have to remove from some cameras in order for them to do this trick. The camera natively sees IR, um, which distorts the image slightly because the wavelength is off. And so presumably modern cell phones are cutting out IR to get even crisper images or something like that. Um, but apparently according to you, there are older phones that if somebody had one, we'll pick up the IR dot and you say you've seen it. And I think I've seen your image that seems to show it.

[01:15:18] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Um, which if that's not what it is, we need to rule it out. You have it from more than one angle.

[01:15:25] John Cullen: Not on his chin, but we have multiple images of what appears to be a targeting dot not on Charlie Kirk. So I've got it just above the D on the freedom shirt. I've got it on his chin, but then I have it like on a lady's back on a guy's shoulder, like we see it kind of. Honing in on the target, so to speak. So we see it kind of in the vicinity and then on Charlie. And it's hard to see you have to, you know, boost contrast and all this other kind of stuff to get it, you know, boost shadow, boost contrast to get it to show up. Cause it's not easy to see, but you know, this is the kind of forensic stuff that I was doing with the Vegas shooting. So we found infrared laser dots in Vegas and these infrared lasers. If, if you're an operator, if you're a commando, you have something called the Wilcox RAPTAR on your rifle. On a Wilcox RAPTAR, both a visual laser and an IR laser and a flashlight and all kinds of things, it's $8,000 from B&H Photo.

[01:16:27] John Cullen: All right. So you get one of these things and now your laser is invisible to the naked eye, but somebody wearing night vision goggles can see the dot. Right. And that's what they were using in Vegas. And so when we see the infrared laser targeting the Cadillac Escalade, as it gets shot, we see the infrared laser on the back of the, uh, the stage in Vegas. So this is indicative of a commando hanging off a helicopter targeting with his laser and, you know, firing. And so, yeah. So again, it's, it's a hypothesis. The question is, is that what happened here? You know, we see these drones final over the place. It does not appear to me that a shot was taken from the top of the Losee Center. Chris Martenson tends to agree with that. He thinks it came from a higher angle. If the shot came from a UAV, it would be at a slightly higher angle. I calculated 10 degrees.

[01:17:27] John Cullen: If it was taken from above the computer science building, which is where they found a round on the roof.

[01:17:33] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. Now hold on. The angle is constrained by the buildings on the low side and the fringe of the tent on the high side, since we don't see a hole in the tent. Correct. There's no reason you couldn't assassinate him through the tent, except it would leave evidence that we haven't seen. That's right. So you calculate that the shot came from back over the science building where we have yet another dog that didn't bark. We have something either an unfired round or a spent cartridge. It's reported to be an unfired round, which of course makes the idea that it was the shot from the drone impossible because that drone does that round doesn't have its bullet anymore. But what we conspicuously don't have is the spent cartridge, or I think the video gets discovery.

[01:18:36] John Cullen: And more. So the fact that it was Kathryn Nester who brought it up. If she didn't bring it up, we would never know about this.

[01:18:47] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So, okay. In one hypothesis of the crime, a drone takes a shot from above the science building, ejects its cartridge in the normal fashion, which lands on the science building, which is then later found by a police officer who does not catalog it into evidence. And effectively, it is more than a smoking gun, right? It's the spent cartridge from the shot that killed Charlie Kirk. What emerges is inconsistent with that story. We're told that what was found on the science building was an unfired cartridge, the result of a normal cycling of a weapon. Now, if that were true, I don't know who cycles a weapon and doesn't pick up a round that has been dispensed. I mean, you know.

[01:19:51] John Cullen: Yeah. Let's talk about normal cycling of a weapon. So cruiser ready means your AR-15 has no round in the chamber. You don't get in the car with your gun with a round in the chamber. So cruiser ready means when you have your rifle in the car, there is no round in the chamber. So what we're being told supposedly here is that the officer chambered around. Yep. All right. So he was getting ready to shoot somebody. And then that officer removed the magazine from his weapon. Activated the charging handle, ejected the round, ignored it, left it on the rooftop, reinserted his magazine and walked away somewhere. We're not told who found that round. We're not shown the body camera footage of the person who found the round. We're not told when it was found. And we're not told by whom. We're not told who the officer was who left it on the roof. How much time elapsed between the time it was found and the time they realized, oh, that was Bobby.

[01:21:09] John Cullen: Yeah, Bobby ejected his round. Was it 20 minutes later, 30 minutes later, 40 minutes later, an hour and a half, six minutes. How long was it before they realized, oh, that's nothing. And in those minutes, why was there no tent card placed there? Why was it not photographed? Why was it not taken into evidence? Even if Bobby had ejected it in Las Vegas, O'Donnell fires his weapon in room 32-135, three round burst, accidental discharge. That's in the report. That's documented.

[01:21:46] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah. So why would we not? Why wouldn't you document a live round found in the vicinity of the crime? I mean, you know, it doesn't make any sense. It's a dog that didn't bark. Now I will point out in the version of the story that we are given, it's inconsistent with the drone hypothesis because the round is unfired. Also because it's the wrong caliber. Am I right?

[01:22:12] John Cullen: No. Well, yeah, he says it's a .223 three round because it belonged to a police officer, but the guy giving you this testimony never handled the round.

[01:22:25] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So we've got hearsay that a .223 round, not 5.56. It was a.

[01:22:30] John Cullen: Yeah. Two, two. Well, the same, same, same thing.

[01:22:33] Dr. Bret Weinstein: It's more or less the same thing.

[01:22:34] John Cullen: Yeah. It's from a police officer, right? So he's saying it was a cop's unfired round. So I was told I never handled it and we didn't photograph it and it wasn't documented. So, and he says, as I recall, it was an unfired round from a cop. And then she says, well, what building was it found on? He said, I don't know. Well, how do you remember that part? Not the other part. You don't remember what building was on, but you know, it belonged to a cop.

[01:23:04] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Wait, wait, wait, wait. A couple of things that don't make sense here. Yeah. First of all, do cops. So for the audience, .223 and 5.56 are interchangeable to an extent, I think it's guns that fire .223 can all fire 5.56 without any modification, but not the other way around because the pressures that come from them are different. But suffice it to say these two rounds are in most contexts interchangeable. Except that the 5.56 version is, I believe, always full metal jacket and the .223 version comes in a lot of different versions. Which one do cops use?

[01:23:47] John Cullen: I think they're buying civilian .223, because 5.56 is a NATO spec, is NATO spec. So .223 is if you go to Cabela's or you go to, you know, most of the shops, that's what you're going to buy. But I think you can buy like surplus 5.56 NATO stuff, you know, probably, you know, made in Belgium or something of that kind of thing.

[01:24:09] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You can certainly buy 5.56. But but anyway, my point is it. What we're being given a story with so many contingencies in it, the round wasn't taken into evidence, so we're just kind of being told, oh, yeah, there was a round. It was unfired. It was .223. It was a cop. Now, how do you know that?

[01:24:29] John Cullen: And which country is right? Which cop?

[01:24:31] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Which cop did this? Even to the extent that it was a cop, the only way you would know that it was a cop cycling their weapon is if you did know what cop and they said, oh, yeah, I cycled my weapon up there. In which case there's a question. Why did you do that? And why did you leave the round?

[01:24:48] John Cullen: So and how long did it take them to realize that? In other words, if you're walking around the roof and you come across the round and I call what the hell is this and you're, you know, you're working with somebody else and it's not, it's not hers and it's not yours. And I call who the hell is this? Now, maybe it takes you 10 minutes to find out it's Mikey's, but in those 10 minutes, I mean, are you walking around with it in your pocket or did you drop a tent card there and say, Hey, take a picture of this and sit you. Why would we not drop a tent card and photograph it and sit to you while we're does this belong to one of our guys or what the hell is this? You don't document that. That's why you have no credibility. That's why the, that's why nobody trusts the FBI

[01:25:35] Dr. Bret Weinstein: is because fucking malpractice is what that is. Yeah. Malfeasance.

[01:25:39] John Cullen: Yeah.

[01:25:40] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And I will say, uh, I'm probably one thing that's obvious to me is I don't know whether Tyler Robinson's defense is competent or not, but if they fail to focus on all of the dogs that didn't bark, I mean, their job is to create reasonable doubt for Tyler Robinson. Our system functions only if they do that job to the best of their ability. They can't half-ass it. So the point is if you and I can spot all of these dogs that didn't bark, they need to wield them because their job is to provide the most reasonable defense for their client that they can. And it is, you know, maybe they will be forbidden by the judge to introduce the dogs that didn't bark into the trial. That could well happen. Or the prosecution has a convincing answer to these things, but if they don't go there, that's a red flag from my perspective. All right. So you've got this round.

[01:26:47] Dr. Bret Weinstein: That's reported. It's the wrong caliber. It's credited to an unnamed cop and it is unfired. That is inconsistent with the drone hypothesis, but obviously because it wasn't logged into evidence, because we don't know who the cop was, we can't ascertain that any of that is even true. If on the other hand, it was a 7.62 round that was actually a spent cartridge and not an unfired round, then that would be consistent with the weapon that you've found can be fired from one of these Birds of Prey drones or Bird of Prey–equipped drone. And it would raise tremendous questions because the 7.62 round, you tell me if I've got this wrong. 7.62 round is a .30 caliber round and therefore it is loosely consistent. No, it is, I think consistent with what was apparently taken out of Charlie and it is near enough to the round that we are told was fired that it would not be anomalous with the crime as presented.

[01:28:07] Dr. Bret Weinstein: In other words, if the shot came from the drone, it was 7.62 caliber, then blaming it on a .30-06 would be consistent because you're not dealing with a pristine round being taken out of Charlie. You're dealing with something that's been beaten all to hell. And so it could be either one.

[01:28:26] John Cullen: Exactly. You're exactly right. And the minute we heard, you know, a minute they shared with us that it was a .30-06. I mean, I knew immediately that that's a red herring immediately. Right. And so, you know, all these guys who hunt same thing, they're like, what get the hell out of here. It was not a .30-06. It's like telling us it was a Winchester Magnum. There's no way that that's what it was. But to your point, there's a reason for it. In other words, why do they do that? Why? Why does Langley come up with this stuff? One is because of the red herring effect, right? So you got a whole bunch of people now who are going to go off on a whole tangent about the round and was it this was it that was it this was it that. But to your point, it's the same diameter. .30-06, 7.62, .300 Blackout, .308 are all .30 caliber rounds. And so if you don't want people thinking 7.62.

[01:29:30] John Cullen: You talk in .30 lingo. So for people who don't know a bullet that's .308, the diameter is point three zero eight inches. A bullet that's 7.62 is 7.62 millimeters in diameter. All right. So these are measurements. 5.56 is 5.56 millimeters in diameter. A .223 is... .223 is 0.223 inches, just less than a quarter of an inch in diameter. That's what these numbers represent. So when we talk about a 30 caliber round, we're talking about rounds that are approximately point three zero inches in diameter. No. Okay. Making sense. No, no, you, you said it wrong. In what way? Point three. Oh, you said point three. Oh, inches.

[01:30:24] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Oh, okay.

[01:30:25] John Cullen: Now in 7.62 mm. Okay. It's millimeters to me. This is very similar to telling everybody that the virus in China came from a bat. When it came from a chicken, you, you telling everybody .30, .30, .30-06, .30-06, and the seven number doesn't enter in at all. There's no 7.6. We're not even in millimeters. It's genius. It's brilliant. And now everybody's now it wasn't that get me some hogs. Let's go shoot some pork. Let's go shoot some stuff. And is it .30-06? And do you know how much money was spent on whether this was a .30-06 round or not? I looked at the minute I heard it. I'm like, there's no way that's what that is. But I understand because, because it could be .300 Blackout. See this is, yeah, these are .300 Blackout right here. And this is what's called the skeaved round, or skived, skeaved or skived, however people pronounce it, S-K-I-V-E-D.

[01:31:27] John Cullen: And basically there's laser cuts in this bullet so that when it hits the target, it petals open, but this is the same diameter as .30-06. It's nowhere near the same size. This is .300 Blackout, much, much smaller, but the diameter of the bullet. In other words, if you found this inside of me, it's kind of the same as .30-06. Once it's inside the body in diameter, it's hard to tell what's what. So what we heard from the ATF lady was, yes, it's a 30 caliber round, but I can't tell you exactly what it is.

[01:32:09] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You're talking about the slug that was

[01:32:10] John Cullen: pulled out of Charlie. Correct. So she's telling us it's in the 30 caliber family, which includes 7.62.

[01:32:19] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah. Got it. So what they told us is 30 caliber and 30 caliber is consistent with either hypothesis of the crime, either the, the .30-06 or a 7.62. Either one would give you that same answer. So what it's not consistent with, I'm going to keep focusing here because I think it's important. The round, the unfired round that we are told was pulled off of another building. Is radically inconsistent with a 30 caliber round. It's the bullet diameters. It's a 22. Correct. So that's a very small bullet. So if let's put it this way. If the round that was pulled off of, I guess the science building was actually a 30 caliber round of some kind, and it was spent rather than whole, that would be a blinking red light relevant to the crime fact, the fact that we are told, Oh, it was nothing. It was a unshot round from a cycled police weapon. Not even worth entering into evidence is what a coverup would look like if a shell casing from a 30 caliber round was found at a different location from which Charlie might've been shot.

[01:33:56] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Exactly. So, so again, the point is dogs that didn't bark that round. The fact that we don't have it and can't talk to the officer who cycled his weapon and mysteriously left the round sitting there on the roof. That is what a coverup would look like in this case. It would look like claiming it's a different diameter than it is claiming it was unfired when in fact it was spent and not entering it into evidence so that it would just kind of disappear from all considerations.

[01:34:32] John Cullen: And if we didn't have the history, in other words, if, if without studying the Vegas shooting and without being aware of the extent to which the police department is willing to go to present a case, so to speak, in other words, it's called forging evidence. So when these guys get to a crime scene and then they start monkeying around with stuff, hiding stuff, not reporting stuff. This is malfeasance. I mean, this is, it's hard for a society to operate when we can't trust the guys that, you know, are carrying the guns and supposed to be enforcing the law. And so what happened in Vegas is so egregious. And you look at that and you say, these guys do stuff like this kind of often. In other words, you know, the footage that we have from the body cam of the one officer, they tell us how their body cam on in Vegas seems to illustrate that the window that they told us even paddock shot everybody from wasn't broken when they entered the suite.

[01:35:40] John Cullen: And then it after midnight, I've got footage of a guy who was doing a podcast outside the building at midnight or something. And in the background over his shoulder, we see an explosion at Mandalay Bay. And it's like, well, what the hell did they just blow the window out so that we could have a shooter in that room? Because you think about, well, what are the ramifications if we didn't? What if they called down to Lombardo, right? So they breach the room. They go in the room. Stephen Paddock's dead on the floor. Right. He's got a gunshot wound to the mouth. He's lying on the floor dead. The guys are looking around like, but the window is not broken. Well, in Vegas, for those of you who've never been to Vegas, hotel windows don't even open a crack in Vegas, not even an inch. People throw stuff out the windows like quarters and a half dollars and it's people in the head, so they, you can't open the windows in Vegas at all.

[01:36:42] John Cullen: So if you're going to shoot somebody from a hotel room, you have to break the window. There is no wall. There's no crack. The window open and just stick the rifle out. So there's none of that. You have to break the window. So when the cops into the suite and they're looking around, they're talking to the guys outside and the guys outside are like, is that you guys we see in the broken window and like, well, we know you don't see us in the broken window and they're all looking around like what broken window, but the evidence report that we have from the police shows photographs of the broken window from inside the suite and there's glass all over the floor.

[01:37:25] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. I want to, I want to pick up the Las Vegas story in earnest here in a second, but let's close out the Charlie part of this first. All right. Given the hypothesis of the crime in which a series of drones, I don't know what you call it, a package of drones, uh, is deployed maybe from the HADES plane that descended to 200 feet and 115 knots. Did you say? Yes, sir. Um, twice claiming a missed landing. Um, let's say that the drones were deployed. You got a handful of drones. They act together. One of them is armed with a presumably a 7.62, because that's the one that this defense contractor says you can load onto this Bird of Prey. Um, the others were argue, were being used to, uh, to do, uh, targeting telemetry, who knows what weather monitoring so that you would know. You know exactly how much deflection there would be from wind or something.

[01:38:23] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You could imagine a package of drones could arrange a shot with some of the drones very close to the target and the firing drone far away from the target. It would have to be a suppressed, um, rifle in order that you didn't get the crack-thump. So John in other podcasts has said, uh, that he initially was looking for the crack-thump, the crack-thump. The crack is as the bullet passes you. Makes a sonic boom. You hear that first and then sound traveling at the speed of sound. You would hear the firing of the weapon second as it caught up to you. So the distance between the sonic boom sound that you hear from any location and the catching up of the, the report of the weapon, uh, allows you to triangulate a position. John says he tried to triangulate a position. None of them added up. He's thinking about echoes and all of that. And then it occurs to him at some point, uh, that if the weapon was suppressed so that the, uh, report from the weapon was greatly reduced and it came from much farther away, then all he's hearing are the cracks of the sonic booms reverberating around all of the hardscaping at the site of the assassination.

[01:39:34] John Cullen: Exactly right. And it also gives us that slightly increased angle that both Chris Martenson and I agree was more likely than a seven degree angle from the Losee Center.

[01:39:50] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So, which answers the question of why there's no exit wound with a 30 caliber bullet.

[01:39:58] John Cullen: It answers it in the two ways, two ways. One is the angle of attack. So the angle of attack is higher. It's at 10 degrees. If the shot is taken from 330 yards out, which is over the computer science building, the angle is 10 degrees. If we go back to 350 yards, the angle is like 9.5, 9.7 degrees, something like that. So it's a slightly increased angle from what we were told at seven. It satisfies Chris Martenson's hypothesis in mind that was slightly higher angle of attack, but it also addresses the lack of an exit wound because instead of the shot being taken from 142 yards, it's being taken from 350 yards. And so the kinetic energy is going to bleed off at that kind of distance. So on impact, the amount of kinetic energy that's transferred to the target is significantly less at 350 yards. And if it's a petaling round, the skived round, like what I was showing you guys earlier, these are hollow points, laser cut and designed to petal open when they hit the target.

[01:41:04] John Cullen: So if I'm hit with one of these from 350 yards out. And it's coming in at a 10 degree angle. To tell you the truth, I don't expect an exit wound. I don't.

[01:41:17] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. So to fill in a little bit, the distance makes a huge impact on the amount of energy the round has at the point that it arrives because air doesn't like moving out of the way. So if you've ever been on a bicycle, most of your energy is going to compensating for the energy that's being lost to the wind as you're moving air molecules that were standing still when you got to them. But it's the same way. So firing from much farther out, the bullet would be moving much slower. Would it still be supersonic at the point that it got to Charlie?

[01:41:54] John Cullen: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. And we hear it. Oppressed. Yeah. So this is the other thing. So, um, you know, Chris Martenson and I both use Audacity software and what it allows us to do is take the audio from these videos and look at them on the oscilloscope and measure stuff. And so what becomes immediately apparent when you put the audio on there is it's a gunshot. I mean, it's the spike. The frequency response is so steep. It's the only, again, I've done this, you know, before it did this in Butler and all that. I know what gunshots look like and I studied some of the footage of the exploding pagers in Lebanon and all that. And again, it's almost like there are professional red herrings. There are things that are seated in these narratives to take people off of what I consider the vital evidence. And it happens all the time, every case, right?

[01:42:50] John Cullen: They're talking about it was the fireman, the real target in Butler. I mean, you know, the absurd scenarios that just take a whole bunch of people down a red herring, you know, rat hole.

[01:43:06] Dr. Bret Weinstein: I try and stay the no planes hypothesis of 9/11.

[01:43:10] John Cullen: Yeah. Yeah. It was, it was all, uh, you know, it was, it was a late laser telemetry. I tend to stick with the meat and potatoes evidence, the stuff that jumps out at me as being the game changing, vital evidence. And, you know, what's so refreshing for me is to see the frustration in you, to see you scratching your head and going, how is nobody talking about this? Has been, it's the story of my life for the last nine years, whether it was helicopters in Vegas, there's not 10 dead in Shanghai or Hong Kong. There's a meteor crater in Nigeria. They put the field hospitals away after 10 days. There's a shooter in the trees in Butler and there's HADES aircraft and you may use all of the place here and I'm treated like I'm the outcast.

[01:44:05] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Well, it's not only, so I will say it's driving me crazy because my professional life has been dedicated to understanding biology where you never have complete information and you still make progress by figuring out, you know, which pieces of evidence are actually important and which ones are being ignored by other people and all of that stuff. This is just another case of this and to have people ignoring obviously important evidence, even after it's been pointed out and then even worse when they tell you, man, are you dumb not to understand how compelling the case against Tyler Robinson is. And it's like, what is it about Charlie Kirk's death that is actually turning a huge swath of otherwise intelligent people into zombies? Because it may be that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, but there's no way that you could have the level of certainty these people have until you had already processed all information and come to a reason to ignore it.

[01:45:18] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You can't bypass it because you think you have a hypothesis of the crime that works. Because, of course, if you're going to shoot somebody and pretend that the explanation is something other than it is, you're going to have a lot of evidence against the somebody. So you can't the logic doesn't allow you to stop with do you realize that there's DNA evidence evidence against Tyler Robinson on the screwdriver and the towel and this and that. The answer is it wouldn't there be either way. So what you need to do is look at the evidence of other hypotheses and figure out whether or not it actually matters. If you haven't done that part of the job, you're not in a position to even weigh in.

[01:45:59] John Cullen: There's something that I've been studying and I just did a video a week or two ago about it called belief perseverance. And belief perseverance is sort of a combination of cognitive dissonance, normalcy bias, anchoring bias, ostrich bias and bandwagon, the bandwagon effect. And when you put all these things together, it's almost like the public is doomed because there's all these factors from a psychological perspective that work against people being able to recalibrate. All right. Now, as a scientist, as a biologist, as you were just pointing out, that's kind of the job. Your job is to constantly recalibrate the thesis, the hypothesis to zero in on the thing that has the least assumptions. Right.

[01:46:53] Dr. Bret Weinstein: And that the evidence that assumes the least and explains the most period, the end.

[01:46:57] John Cullen: That's exactly right. And so I come at these investigations in very much the same manner. I'm trying to figure out what is the vital evidence that changes the story. And I know all that other stuff and, you know, I'm on the spectrum. So I could care less about the people. Everybody's talking about the people in this guy. And what's this guy doing? This guy talked to this guy and this guy went, I could care less. I I. I hate talking about the people and people like, well, what about what he did and he did? And where'd the bullet come from? That's my thing. And when I finally have to go there, I'll learn how to say Mutaib bin Abdullah. I'll learn Mohammed and I have all learned Mansour bin Muqrin. Once I find out what all happened.

[01:47:51] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah, you will. You will note I have the same bias. I'm not talking about

[01:47:55] John Cullen: the people. Of course. And but this is what I mean. Your frustration with this one, I think, is that you're going to have to be a little with this wise. Nobody talking about it thing is something that I experienced when we were doing Butler. Right. So in Butler, I've got Eli Crane testifying in front of Congress. John Collins got evidence that there's a second shooter, ballistic evidence. And as soon as Tulsi Gabbard got into office and got approved. I can do, you know, I'm Joe Kent's reaching out to me as her chief of staff. And says, can we talk about this Butler thing? Now, what do you got? And so we're getting into all the 3D stuff and he's talking Eli Crane and Eli Crane goes in front of Congress and says there's evidence, ballistic evidence of a second shooter. And Eli Crane is a Navy SEAL sniper. I mean, can you get a more qualified guy to tell you, I think there might be a second shooter here, kids.

[01:48:57] John Cullen: And then remember when I was, I was on the show with you two years ago. It was July of 2024. In fact, it was less than a week after the shooting. I think it was the 19th, six days after the shooting. And I said, reluctantly to you, I don't know what to tell you, Bret, but I think the shooter's out there in the trees. I wish there was a Dunkin' Donuts there, right? I said, I wish, you know, Dunkin' Donuts and then we could go investigate Ben Affleck, but there's no Dunkin' Donuts. There's trees out there. Well, then I got on a podcast with a guy named Clay Martin, who's one of the top special forces, snipers and sniper instructors in the world. And he's like, dude, we love trees. You stick me in a tree in a ghillie suit and it depends. You won't see me for 40 hours. All right. So he's like, Oh yeah, that's, that's what we do, baby. That's what we do.

[01:49:53] John Cullen: We're up in the tree, you know, walk right by us. You will not know we are there. And Eli Crane testifies to this. It says there's ballistic evidence of this and nobody wants to talk about it. Sean Ryan doesn't want to talk. Nobody wants to talk about it. It's kind of weird. Congressional testimony. That is weird. Right. So each one of these stories, we've got this same phenomenon, which is there's a bunch of people out there that seem afraid to talk about it. Is it Elisabeth Noelle- Neumann's spiral of silence? Or is it something more nefarious? I don't know.

[01:50:38] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. So let's detour from Charlie here. I have one more question on the Charlie situation. Then I want to go to Butler where I think again, it's a mature explanation that seems to check all of the boxes. And then you're sort of left with the implications. The Bird of Prey with the targetable 762 rifle at you said 600 meters.

[01:51:10] John Cullen: Yes. Accurate to up to 600 meters with 90% accuracy. It might hit the target 18 times out of 20 shots.

[01:51:19] Dr. Bret Weinstein: 18 out of 20. And it would have been over the computer science building. Okay. Given that hypothesis, the drone that was carrying the weapon would have been. Quadcopter or octocopter. What would it have been?

[01:51:37] John Cullen: Yeah. It's the Elbit Thor is the actual unit and it is a quadcopter weighs, um, I think it weighs 22 pounds. I think it weighs 10 kilograms and it has the ability to transport its own weight. So it can carry another 10 kilograms or 22 pounds. So the barrack rec 10 does not weigh 22 pounds. Right. So this

[01:52:02] Dr. Bret Weinstein: sounds like a loud machine.

[01:52:05] John Cullen: Potentially. Yeah.

[01:52:06] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Potentially. You have to move a lot of air. I mean, probably the sound is proportional to how much weight it's carrying, but you've got to move a lot of air to keep something like that aloft. You know, even just the rifle is a fair amount of weight. So the question is, would we have evidence would others on the campus who were not at the Kirk event have seen that thing? Certainly they would have heard it. If it was hovering over the computer science building at the angle that you're proposing, it's not that high. So do we have any indication that such a creature was seen or heard?

[01:52:53] John Cullen: Probably not. I see one UAV that comes in flies in this, uh, arcing, arcing. I don't know how to describe it. Just don't know. Comes in and flies out. But the net net is no, I have not yet found video footage of what appears to be a Bird of Prey on a Thor. So we don't have that as to the noise they make. Again, this is highly sophisticated stuff. And I think assuming that basic problems like recoil and noise haven't been addressed is folly, for example, for example, Amazon has a patent on noise reduction for UAVs. You guys can look it up. So if Amazon has noiseless UAVs, depending on in these railways are doing active noise cancellations, basically noise cancellation, like in your headphones, but there's a speaker on the bottom of the drone. It's just doing out of phase transmission of the noise that thing makes. That's all it's doing. It's both those headphones.

[01:54:04] John Cullen: It's not that complicated. So thinking that they don't have that when Amazon has it, Amazon's got the patent, you guys can look it up. Go to Google patents, look up Amazon drone, you know, noise reduction or something like that. You'll find it.

[01:54:19] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You'll find it. I'd love to know how effective it is. Okay.

[01:54:24] John Cullen: So I think the expectation that we're going to see the Bird of Prey is similar to an expectation we're going to see the room receipt that MBS was staying at the Four Seasons back in October, 2017.

[01:54:36] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah, that's not what I'm expecting. Is students who will say, yeah, actually now that you mentioned it, there was a drone over here.

[01:54:49] John Cullen: I'm still waiting about it. I'm still waiting for anybody to any of them. They're right there flying right in front of people's faces and nobody's noticing them. We saw one in the tunnel. Look, it looks like the, the black hornet. It looks like a floor black hornet in the tunnel comes in, does a U-turn and it's gone. Nobody even notices it's there and it's hectic, right? There's thousands of people, 3000, 4000 people. It's noisy and backed by the science building, you know, 150, 200 feet in the air. If I'm in charge of the operation, I'm bringing the unit in at a thousand feet, lowering it down to take the shot and back up and out. I don't know if people see me.

[01:55:37] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So, yeah, yeah, no, that's exactly what I would imagine is that especially given that it doesn't have to sit there and target, if it's got targeting over where Charlie is and it can just drop in, know its exact position and take the shot, you know, it's already primed and ready to go, then it wouldn't be there very long to be noticed. I still would be surprised if nobody saw anything unless of course there were distractions on the ground 600 meters out.

[01:56:05] John Cullen: Well, here's a challenge. So here's a challenge, a friendly challenge. How many people came forward and said, dude, I saw this guy with a rifle walking out on the roof of the Losee Center. Nobody. So to expect that we would see the drone when nobody saw the guy with the rifle walking around the campus and came forward and said, dude, I was in the parking lot and I was locking up my Civic and this guy walks by with, I couldn't believe it looked like a Mauser. Where is, where's any of those eyewitnesses? We don't have any. So if nobody saw Tyler Robinson with a rifle walking around the school and came forward and said, dude, I saw that guy, I saw that guy walking through Losee Center with a rifle in his hand. Where's that eyewitness? If we don't have that eyewitness expecting, we're going to have one for some flying. I don't think we're going to see it.

[01:56:58] John Cullen: And again, that's what the HADES crew is counting on is that the stuff works. And if it wasn't for a handful of us lunatics, we wouldn't know there were UAVs there at all. Yep. Right. It would have, they would have gotten away with this if it wasn't for five people. One guy found HADES got all those stuff wrong. I'll get the altitude wrong, got everything wrong. And he's a pilot. So he's out at first base. Right. Then we were tipped off that looks like there's some drones out here, but the guy who found the drones lost an interest and didn't pursue them. And I'm going, uh, we got a plane that launches drones and we got drones and the guy on the roof doesn't appear to have taken the shot. And the conversation that I had with Joe Kent was that's a, that's a CIA rookie. That kid just got off the farm and that's your decoy. Why do you need a decoy?

[01:57:56] John Cullen: Because if you don't have a decoy, where'd the shot come from? And now everybody's going to start looking around. Where'd the shot come from?

[01:58:05] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Well, and well, and you know, right, right. If you don't, if you don't have, if you don't have a credible explanation of the crime that makes it, you know, a lefty lunatic, then the question is what was the purpose?

[01:58:22] John Cullen: Well, that that's next. That's going to be where did the shot come from? And people are going to start to look at footage looking for where the shot came from. If I got a guy in black run across the roof, the assumption is, well, that's where the shot came from. And everybody stops looking in the sky because we've got a runner without the runner on the rooftop. But where did the shot come from? Yeah, that's a good point. Pentagon needs a runner. This is a conversation I would show. I said, that's a rookie. The assignment was you're going to go to this location. You're going to lie down. You have no idea. You have no weapon. You have one hundred and twenty dollars in cash in your pocket. The minute you hear the gunshot, you run to the road. There will be a car waiting for you, Ford Fusion, gray. If you are captured, you're the Grubhub guy. You heard gunshots and you just ducked for cover, man.

[01:59:20] John Cullen: You don't know what's going on, dude. You have no idea. You have no weapon. You may spend 30 days in jail. We don't give a shit. Welcome to the CIA.

[01:59:32] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. That's a hell of a speech. All right. Let's let's shift gears and let's talk about Las Vegas. And I think in this case, I will say you've put out your work in an exhaustive form. I went through it one night just kind of binge watching it and was blown away. At the completeness of the story that I had never heard before. I had, of course, heard the official version, thought it was odd, thought some some feels weird here. Why is the guy's brother like he did what? And then the guy's brother, I think, disappeared under a cloud of see Sam material or something. So who knows? But, you know, no manifesto, no motive, just some guy who wanted to see if he could rack up a large number of kills from a hotel room. It did not make sense as a crime, but I thought, OK, you know, like bullets, people do weird shit sometimes. This seems really strange.

[02:00:45] Dr. Bret Weinstein: But what else have you got? And then I ran into your work before I had any idea who you were. You want to tell the story of either the complete story of what you think happened in Vegas or the story of how you came to understand that story?

[02:01:01] John Cullen: Yeah, it's you know, what I've learned in the last nine years since the biggest shooting is that the crazier the crime is, the more complex it is compared to the narrative, the harder it is for people to embrace what actually happened. And so the basic narrative in Vegas is we got a 64 year old guy shoots out the window in his hotel room and just starts unloading on a concert, kills 59 people, wounds 413. The problem is, I'm in Thailand and I'm watching this at 12 o'clock in the afternoon, there's no gunfire coming from Mandalay Bay Room 32-135. And I'm isolating on it, right? I'm stabilizing and isolating footage on the on the hotel room. But there's no gunfire coming from there.

[02:01:59] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So you're looking at this, you're not nothing's coming out as the event unfolds. You're looking at this in the immediate aftermath.

[02:02:07] John Cullen: In the immediate aftermath, I'm studying footage, right? So as it's taken place, I'm just watching, I'm just stunned. But in the days that followed, I had already signed a contract to go to work at the Four Seasons on Koh Samui, which was owned by Alwaleed bin Talal, who I end up accusing of masterminding this crime. So I'm working at his facility and I'm publishing content, accusing him of being behind it from his facility. I'm in the library of the Four Seasons. If the audience has seen the show, what is it, The White Lotus on HBO, they did a season where they they're in Thailand. The hotel that they're at in Thailand is the Four Seasons in Koh Samui. And I had a contract to go work there starting December 1st of 2017. So October 1st of 2017, it's like I know where I'm going to work in eight weeks. And I can apply myself to this and I'm pretty good at Lightroom.

[02:03:15] John Cullen: So Adobe Lightroom, I don't use Photoshop, I use Lightroom. So I can take this video and I can bring up the shadows and I can find stuff. And I was looking for shooters on the rooftops. I want to look for helicopters. I was trying to find shooters on the rooftop of Excalibur, Tropicana, Delano, and I'm looking on the rooftops. And I'm, you know, isolating and slowing down the footage. And that's when I see these helicopters in between the buildings flying the wrong way.

[02:03:48] Eyewitness (clip): So unbelievably certain that it was coming from the helicopter because it was so close. And I remember thinking, why is it that close? Oh, my God, I think it's I think the shooting is coming from the helicopter. Just in that moment was so so certain. Just not a doubt in my mind that there was shooting coming from the helicopter.

[02:04:11] John Cullen: And the issue is that in Vegas, they have Maverick helicopters and there used to be a company called Sundance they required and they do these night tours. But the night tours have very strict guidelines. They have to go 90 miles an hour. They have to maintain a certain altitude. They can't go below a certain altitude. They have to go a certain direction. They have to go up to the Space Needle, turn around. So it's very specific. And I was seeing helicopters going the wrong way. That's a cool, you know, it's like driving the wrong way on the highway. So what are you doing? You can't do that. And those helicopters weren't showing up on the flight radar. The ADS-B transponder feed. And I call, I see it. I see there's a helicopter. I see it flying in there. You see the lights, but it's not on the trans. It's not on flight radar. And October 8th, I found the first helicopter.

[02:05:06] John Cullen: October 9th, I found the second. October 10th, I found the third. And I realized this is an aerial attack, but I didn't realize where it was going to lead until November. And in November, we had the night of the long knife. And that's when I realized that this was most likely an assassination attempt on MBS, staying at the Four Seasons. October 1st, 2017 was Ashura. And Ashura is the Muslim equivalent of Passover. And it's when they tell the kids the story of Exodus. Again, a lot of people don't know that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all embrace the Old Testament. So the story of Exodus, everybody's down with Exodus. Muslims, Jews, and Christians, everybody's down with Exodus. Moses, Ramses, that whole thing. That's Old Testament. Muslims are down with that. They just call it Ashura. And they tell the kids the story of Exodus. October 1st, 2017.

[02:06:16] John Cullen: My hypothesis, Alwaleed bin Talal insists that MBS bring its family to the Four Seasons for Ashura because the Luxor and the Sphinx are outside the window. There's no better place to tell the children the story of Exodus than with a pyramid outside the window and a Sphinx. I insist, bring the whole family, bring the entourage. It's my gift. I won't take no for an answer. I'm your uncle. And I believe that's how they placed him there. Mutaib bin Abdullah was jealous. He was going to be king. Mansour bin Muqrin was jealous. Dad was going to be king. All these guys were going to be crown prince and they all get pushed aside for 31 year old. And

[02:07:04] Dr. Bret Weinstein: fill that in. Okay. Explain that to people who don't know what you're talking about.

[02:07:08] John Cullen: All right. So once upon a time, we had King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia. His son is a guy named Mutaib bin Abdullah, who ends up as the head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, which is the royal family's personal army. So he's a key character, head of Saudi Arabian National Guard. We also have Mansour bin Muqrin, who is the son of Muqrin bin Abdulaziz. Muqrin bin Abdulaziz was the head of the General Intelligence Presidency, which is the Saudi CIA. He was crown prince. Muqrin. So his son, Mansour bin Muqrin, is like, dude, my dad's going to be king. Okay. My dad's going to be king. And you know what that means, right? That means I'm going to be king. And then his dad gets pushed aside. And Mansour bin Muqrin is like, what, what, what, what, what? My dad was going to be king. I was going to be king. And now the 31 year old kid, you push my dad aside for him.

[02:08:17] John Cullen: My dad is the son of Abdulaziz. The motive for the Las Vegas shooting was published in The Guardian in 2015. There was a letter that I believe was written by Mansour bin Muqrin about unrest in the Saudi kingdom and how all of the grandchildren of Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia, Alwaleed bin Talal, Mutaib bin Abdullah, these are the grandsons. And they're looking at the 31 year old kid. We waited our whole lives. We're in our seventies. It should be one of us. He's 31 years old. He can't wait till he's 50, 55. He's got to be king now. And so this is published in The Guardian is this discontent amongst the Royals. And you're reading this thing and you're like, this sure sounds like you guys are planning a coup d'état. And next thing you know, Jamal Khashoggi is advocating for Arab Spring in Saudi Arabia. Well, how did Arab Spring work out in Libya?

[02:09:32] John Cullen: And so MBS is like Arab Spring. Yeah, we're not going to have any Arab Spring. This is a monarchy. If you don't like it, we're going to put you in the meat grinder at the embassy in Turkey one year from the day of the Las Vegas shooting. When he arrived in Turkey at the embassy, at the Saudi embassy that morning, 8 a.m. to get his appointment ticket, it was 10 o'clock at night in Vegas. The one year anniversary.

[02:10:15] Dr. Bret Weinstein: To explain what happened in Turkey.

[02:10:17] John Cullen: Jamal Khashoggi goes to the Saudi embassy to get a marriage license. October 2nd in Turkey, October 1st in Las Vegas, 2018, one year to the day of the Las Vegas shooting. And he never leaves the Saudi embassy in Turkey. He is killed and dismembered in the embassy and there is no evidence of him ever again. He just disappears.

[02:10:52] Dr. Bret Weinstein: It was a meat slicer.

[02:10:53] John Cullen: All right. Well, that's what I would have done. You know, that's my that's what I would do. I'd slice them and make sandwiches and serve it to the cousins and ask them if they've got any more bright ideas. The net of this is that Jamal Khashoggi was the number two guy in Saudi intelligence working for Bandar wasn't a journalist journalist working for the Washington Post. No, he was the number two guy in Saudi intelligence working for Bandar. But he also worked with Alwaleed bin Talal, who was the largest shareholder in Citi group, Apple, Twitter. At one time. And Alwaleed bin Talal was arrested November 5th and under the long knife at the Ritz-Carlton and Riyadh. Blackwater is brought in to conduct the interrogations, and Alwaleed bin Talal loses a lot of weight. Gets real thin, appears to have lost a lot of power. And back in 1970 in 2017, I predicted that Alwaleed bin Talal will never step foot in the United States since the Las Vegas shooting.

[02:12:09] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. So I think we're getting a little bit lost in the people details, which are for everybody, including me, a bit hard to follow.

[02:12:17] John Cullen: Bunch of Saudis pissed off at the young crown prince. 31 years old. That's the net net. Get rid of him. One of us deserves to be king, not the kid.

[02:12:26] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. So let's talk about. The what of the Las Vegas shooting. It is impossible, John, that a bunch of helicopters that could have been used in and a killing spree from the air would be commandeered by a bunch of Saudis close enough to Las Vegas. So how do you square that circle? How do you have helicopters in the air with Saudis shooting at a music festival? Yeah. So that there being a record of what those helicopters were and where they came from and all of that.

[02:13:03] John Cullen: Well, that's how we got to the Saudis. So the first thing was, you kind of have to step through it. So the first thing is there's no gunfire coming from the room. There's a couple individual shots coming from that side room, the 32-134, the little room. But those are 308 shots, bolt action. We hear bang, bang, you know, individual shots, not rapid fire. And we see them. We can see the muzzle flash. We hear them. We see them. There's gunshots coming from the little room. But if there's only eight shots taken, according to the cops, they found eight brass casings. They said eight shots were taken at the fuel tank, six missed and two hit. Okay. That's not really what happened, but that's what they tell us happened. Yes. Shots were taken from that room. Yes. The window in that room is broken. But when I isolated on the main room, there's no gunfire coming from the room.

[02:13:54] John Cullen: None. Zero. Then we have the footage of the cops breaking into the room and they can't find the broken window because there's no glass on the floor because the window isn't broken. So I find the helicopters. There's no gunfire coming from the hotel. Window is not broken. Obviously, this guy didn't do it. So what the hell is going on? We got people shooting in helicopters. Who's got access to helicopters? It would do something like this. North Korea. How North Korea get helicopters into Vegas? That's unlikely. Well, what about Venezuela? That Maduro guy, you know, we don't seem to get along with him back in 2017 or whoever was down there. Is it likely that it was him or I don't know. What about El Chapo? He's got a bunch of helicopters. Was Jim Murren, the CEO of Mandalay Bay? Was he dating El Chapo's daughter? And who the hell would do this?

[02:14:54] John Cullen: And who's got helicopters? So I make a list of the usual suspects. North Korea, Venezuela, El Chapo, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda. Huh. Most of the hijackers we were told September 11th were from where? Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. So Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia have a connection. So all right. Well, might there be some Al Qaeda-ish Saudi guys around the Saudi Arabia? How many helicopters in theater, so to speak? So we know there's no North Korean helicopters nearby. And it turns out that Boeing helicopter is selling, making tons of helicopters for the Saudis in Mesa, Arizona. There's like 200 and I turn 65 to 75 miles away. AH-6 Little Birds, Apaches, Black Hawks, you name it. The Saudis are buying it. But the way we operate is we have this whole thing in the Army called OPM-SANG, the Office of Program Management for the Saudi Arabia National Guard. And what it is is when we sell them, when Boeing sells Saudi Arabia helicopters, we come along the U.S. Army and says, how would you like us to teach you how to fly these things?

[02:16:23] John Cullen: Huh, huh, huh, huh? All right. What if we show you how to fly them? What if we teach you how to maintain them? What if we teach everything you need to know about these helicopters? And we'll charge you, I don't know, 250 million a month or, you know, some crazy note. We've got 250 people at the Office of Program Management for the Saudi Arabian National Guard working at Redstone Arsenal. A staff of 250 people. To manage our relationship with the Saudi Arabian National Guard to whom we're selling all these helicopters and helicopter training. So who knew that the U.S. Army was a revenue generating profit center? So selling training to other countries to now bring your guys here, bring them to America, and we'll put them up at the, you know, you know, what is it? Days Inn or what's the Marriott one? There's something sweets and we'll train them for 18 months at the Boeing helicopter factory.

[02:17:33] John Cullen: You're gonna fly out over the desert, blow up cactuses and you know, whatever the hell you guys do with these things. And in 18 months, you'll be ready to go back to Saudi Arabia and kill people in Yemen. So where did the helicopter

[02:17:48] Dr. Bret Weinstein: companies in the desert with access to helicopters that they are in the process of buying and being trained on?

[02:17:57] John Cullen: And they're sitting on the miles from Las Vegas, sitting on the tarmac and the event takes place on Sunday night at 10 o'clock. So it's like, if you're going to abscond with the helicopters from the Boeing factory, six o'clock at night on a Sunday, who the hell, nobody's, you know, who's, they're there all the time. It's their helicopters. So if they show up on Sunday night at six o'clock, who's going to say, where are you guys going? What are you doing? Where are you going? Where are you going? Nobody. It's their helicopters. And it's Sunday night. Everybody's, you know, everybody's home. Everybody's with their family and always paying attention to this.

[02:18:38] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay. So you got how many helicopters in Las Vegas

[02:18:42] John Cullen: that I think are involved in the attack? Looks like five or six.

[02:18:46] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Five or six helicopters, transponders off, evident in the sky, going the wrong direction for a well-regulated flight path. And I've seen your video evidence. The helicopters myself, which then makes it a dog that didn't bark. Either there's an explanation for those lights in the sky that isn't helicopters or they're helicopters that aren't accounted for. But you've got some other things that need to be explained. Stephen Paddock is in a hotel room with a formidable arsenal of semi-automatic weapons for no obvious reason to you

[02:19:33] John Cullen: and to most people. But to me, it's plain, plainly obvious what's going on. Very quite obvious to me. All right. So why? Why is it so obvious to me? What's going on? He's got a minivan. Do you own a minivan? Do you own one? I do not. I don't own one either. He's got a minivan. He's 60 something years old. He's got a minivan. And he's got three women staying with him. Katie, Laura, and Joanne.

[02:20:07] Dr. Bret Weinstein: This is a, I'm hesitant to use the word degenerate, but this is a chronic gambler who is being put up in fancy rooms at the Mandalay Bay because when he comes to Vegas, he loses money on, is it video poker?

[02:20:25] John Cullen: I think, you know, that's what we're told, right? That's what we're told. Um, but again, what it, what it looks to me like is they leave out the story of the three women. Yep. Right. Even Alex Jones won't talk about it. So if Alex won't talk about it, right, it's really taboo. But we hear the conversation, Joanne, Laura, and Katie, we see room keys all over the counter. There's five room keys on the counter. We've got women's clothing in the suite. Right. So then the bed in the other room was slept in. So it's obvious there's women there. So now you're like, okay, so wait a second. Stephen Paddock is there with three other women, a bunch of guns, Tannerite, which is explosive material that you take out in the desert and you put it in a watermelon and boom, the watermelon exposed and you know, you've got your own fun explosion thing that goes on.

[02:21:19] John Cullen: You can buy that stuff at Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop. So to me, I look at the scene. I think he's got a bunch of guns. He's got three girls and a bunch of Tannerite and a minivan. These guys are going out to the desert. They're going shooting. He's got 24 guns for eight people. It's him and three chicks and he's told there's four guys coming. But these guys are rollers, man. This one guy's got the Ferrari SF90. The other guy's got the Stradale. The other guy's got the Lamborghini and the other guy's got the convertible Bentley. And the girls are telling them, you take these guys shooting. They're likely to give you 10 grand for each one of these rifles. They fall in love with your Nivesky. Guys going to say, I'll give you five grand for this right now. And that's perfectly legal. Private weapons sales are perfectly legal in Nevada. So he wants to take people out to the desert with his weapons and say, let's go have some fun.

[02:22:23] John Cullen: And then these guys are like, we'll tell you what, I'll give you 12,000 cash for this, this, and this, these three right here. I hope we can do that. That's totally legal.

[02:22:33] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Okay, so hold on a second. To square the circle, you've got Stephen Paddock who is blamed for the massacre. Who is easy to blame for the massacre because he has an arsenal in his hotel room that looks like he's planning a massacre. The evidence that that's not what he was doing is not discussed. He's got women come into the room. You say the window is not broken in the way that it would need to be in order for him to be shooting at the festival. So that smells like a setup, which means that the whole thing, Hey, you need to bring an impressive arsenal so that you can go shooting in the desert. These guys can blow up some Tannerite. You'll sell them some weapons. So, you know, don't hold anything back. Bring everything you got. And so he was set up. What was he set up for?

[02:23:34] John Cullen: Well, he becomes the arsenal. And now the real killers, the commandos, the Al Qaeda guys, they don't even need to bring anything more than a wallet. All the guns and ammo are up on the 32nd floor. Knock, knock. We're here for the party. Oh, you must be Stephen. Hi, my name is Farwaz. Goodbye, Stephen. Salaam alaikum. Hi, what do we got? There's a whole suitcase of AK-47 magazines in the room. What happened to the AK-47s? Where did they go? The guys took the AK-47s because that's what they like. They don't like AR-15s.

[02:24:16] Dr. Bret Weinstein: That's a dog that didn't bark.

[02:24:18] John Cullen: A whole suitcase. Whole suitcase.

[02:24:20] Dr. Bret Weinstein: You wouldn't bring... This stuff is heavy. And you're moving it from a vehicle to a room. The chances you are going to have magazines full of lead for guns you don't have with you. It's absurd. Right. It's absurd. It's absurd. So the AK-47s left and their absence is a dog that didn't bark.

[02:24:45] John Cullen: Exactly. And the presence of the AK-47s in the magazines and the suitcase and the presence of the three women, the fact that there's two cars, the fact that there's a minivan and a Hyundai Sonata or whatever. Hyundai... What was it? Hyundai Tucson? I don't know. It's some Hyundai. So some little Hyundai SUV and a minivan. Well, obviously he didn't drive there with two vehicles. He came and they said he had Mary Lou Danley's player card, but she's in the Philippines. So one of these three chicks, Katie Laura Joanne, is using Mary Lou Danley's player card. And pretending to be Mary Lou, but they don't care over there. You just have a player card. They're not checking your ID for that. And nobody talks about the three women. Nobody talks about any aspect. But to me, it just looks like this is a honeypot. He was set up by the three women. He's probably an easy target.

[02:25:36] John Cullen: You find a guy who goes to the gun range, who's got expensive looking shit. And these girls are probably former Saudi intelligence. Right? Imagine, you know, Saudi intelligence is bigger than the Mossad, number one. All right. And they're better funded. All right. Now, when a woman turns 45 years old who works for the General Intelligence Presidency, and she retires, she becomes an independent contractor. And if you need to hire somebody and you're might have been Abdullah, you know who to call. And she knows exactly how to seduce a 60 something year old guy into Stephen's got a new girlfriend. Stephen sends Marilou Danley to the Philippines with a hundred thousand dollars. It says, get the hell out of here. You should see this hot piece of, oh, I got a new girlfriend. Gets rid of gets rid of Mary Lou. He's got three women in there, a bunch of guns and a minivan and Tannerite.

[02:26:41] John Cullen: They're going. He thinks he's going to the desert to go shooting the next day. And knock, knock, you're dead. Goodbye, Steve. Okay.

[02:26:50] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So what you've got so far is you've got Saudi helicopters with Saudi crew in the air. You've got a patsy who is induced to bring an arsenal for the taking for some Saudi assassins. What you don't yet have is a reason to shoot up a music festival and you don't have the purpose. Okay. So Stephen Paddock is tricked into bringing an arsenal that is then used by these assassins, but for what? So what connects the helicopters to the assassins in the Mandalay Bay? The ultimate massacre at the music festival.

[02:27:49] John Cullen: Good question. So what appears to have happened is that at 9:47 p.m., it appears there may have been a gunfight up at the Four Seasons because we see the window in the four Seasons get blown out at 9:47 p.m. That's the window that the SWAT guys are trying to tell them. Are you in the broken window that's faces North facing the Luxor? That's the window in the four seasons that's broken. Not in Stephen Paddock's suite. There's no broken window in there. And they said, we see movement. How would they see movement from outside if the curtains closed? I wouldn't. So it means that the guys outside are looking in a broken window at the Four Seasons. The curtains are open and there's people up there. There's still people in there. And the guys down in 32-135 like, no, there's no broken window here.

[02:28:50] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So you have the cops in Stephen Paddock's room saying there's no broken window.

[02:28:55] John Cullen: No broken window facing the Luxor.

[02:28:57] Police radio (clip): We are facing North. We are facing North. Performing that is you guys that's in the broken window that faces the Luxor. We do not have a broken window. It looks like you might have another room that has a broken window that also faces the Luxor. That North end.

[02:29:19] John Cullen: And then Brett Brosnahan goes to the window, pulls the curtain and says, no, Corey, it's not. No, it's not Corey. No, no, it's not. And then we hear, okay, trader, we got the broken window, but nobody investigates the bro. Nobody pays any attention to it. Nobody says, Hey guys, watch out, man. So that first step is a doozy. And Brett Brosnahan doesn't appear to be walking on broken glass. Why was it so hard to find the broken window? If the glasses all over the four, when you just say, Hey boss, I bet it's this one because there's glass all over the four. I'm no detective, but I bet it's this window because there's glass all over the four. There was no glass on the four. That's why they can't find the broken one. No, because the window is not broken yet. The video footage I have from 12:23 a.m. Appears to show the Las Vegas Metro police department breaking the window in 32-135 so that Stephen paddock could be the lone gunman.

[02:30:25] John Cullen: If the window in 32-135 is not broken, the story then to Lombardo is sir. We thought we had the guy and he's got a ton of guns and ammo up here, but the windows not broken. So there's no way he could have shown anybody. The other thing I want people to understand. I had an opportunity to spend some time with Dale Comstock. Dr. Dale Comstock is probably the deadliest American alive. He's about my age is in the sixties. He has not lost the step. He was Delta Force and I believe he has probably killed more enemies with his bare hands than any other guy that we've got. I mean, Dale Comstock is the real deal. He is the guy. He's the one that the movies are based on. And when I had an opportunity to talk about these things with Dale, he has this ability to recalibrate. Unlike anybody I've ever met. He takes in new information and new evidence and is already recalculating the entire scenario in a manner unlike anybody I've met.

[02:31:49] John Cullen: And it's astounding to me how he takes this new feed and he's like, well, then that would mean this. And then that what would mean that this happened that that's it. And he just completely recalculates. And this gets back to this belief perseverance thing that we talked about. People form beliefs and then new evidence shows up. And when the new evidence shows up, it's very difficult for people often to recalibrate, to factor in the new evidence because it's going to mean that some of the things they believe before are probably not true. Right. So, you know, all of a sudden I start piling on evidence on H7N9 outbreaks and people start looking at this and going, there might be some validity to this after an amount of evidence. And it means you're changing your beliefs, which from a cognitive dissonance standpoint is so difficult to do. It's nauseating.

[02:32:44] John Cullen: When people see my videos on Twitter on X and people watch the stuff and they see some of the stuff and where this is heading, people comment. I'm nauseous from this. I'm literally sick. I feel like I'm going to vomit because of what this means.

[02:33:03] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. What? So if Stephen Paddock is not the shooter, the Saudis are involved in some kind of a gunfight in the Four Seasons. What are the Saudis fighting about? Presumably it has something to do with succession. And what does it have to do with killing a lot of country music fans?

[02:33:27] John Cullen: So again, it appears to me that the plan was let's kill MBS if we can in the hotel. If we can't and we cannot get through his security, the helicopters are there to flush him out of the hotel into his motorcade. What's interesting is the guys who were behind this were Saudi intelligence. So they are the guys who know what the exfiltration protocols are. And the exfiltration protocol is when the president is at the white house correspondence dinner and all of a sudden there's gunshots and the guys are, sir, we got to go and they grab Melania and they're like, man, we've got to go. That's the exfiltration protocol. There are certain things to trip it. One is the sound of gunfire. Well, the guys who plan this know the exfiltration protocols. They ran the GIP. So if we can get him to leave the building, and get to his motorcade, we got Six Birds and we got Apaches, AH- 6is and Black Hawks.

[02:34:34] John Cullen: What we got them, they're trying to flush them out of the hotel. The guys who killed Stephen Paddock, I believe, were killed up at the Four Seasons. You never heard anything about the Four Seasons. That was kept out of the news. Right. We've we see the window get broken up at the Four Seasons at 9:47 p.m. We see it happen. And then we hear the guys talking, the SWAT guys. You got another room with a broken window facing the Luxor. That's what we see happen at 9:47 p.m. So what it appears they were doing was they tried to shoot the fuel tank with a zirconium tipped round, which is incendiary. And an incendiary zirconium tipped round will ignite jet fuel. Jet fuel doesn't ignite easily, but this stuff will ignite it. It appears it was a 50 caliber round that shot the tank from the parking lot right there where Dan Bilzerian was running around.

[02:35:33] John Cullen: Dan Bilzerian was like running around a dirt parking lot there. It looks to me like the shot was taken from there with a 50 caliber gun. And it was a Raufoss round, which is zirconium tipped incendiary. We know that because when you look at the tank, you see the black where the round hit. And that means it was an explosion. They were trying to blow the fuel tank to create like a Michael Mann movie kind of thing with a huge fireball. And it would have been unbelievably dramatic, but that didn't happen. So what they need is some sort of debacle, some sort of disaster outside. And if you're Al Qaeda, white girls and hot pants and cowboy hats are heathens. And shooting them in the head is that's like shooting mice, shooting rats.

[02:36:33] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So blowing up the tank was plan A. Didn't work. Shooting up the festival is plan B.

[02:36:41] John Cullen: Bedlam. Now we have bedlam. Now MBS is going to try and get out of there. And he does. And it appears that what happened was his entourage made its way to Maverick helicopter because we see seven Maverick helicopters depart from Maverick on Flightradar at 10:13 p.m. during the gunfire. It's like you guys can't wait for the gunfire to end to send the tour out. Seven helicopters at 10:13 p.m. during the gunfire.

[02:37:24] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Yeah, again, like with the Charlie Kirk issue where on the HADES plane, I believe they would be likely to have known that Charlie had been shot. There's no way that a tour operator in Las Vegas isn't thoroughly aware of what's going on. This is somebody who's in radio contact.

[02:37:42] John Cullen: But what's interesting is we have the radio communications with the air traffic control and air traffic control system. Maverick. Hey, something going on down there at the concert. And the Maverick pilots it just looks at the concerts getting out. Like what? OK, we have all these recordings and then the air traffic control guy comes on and says, notice to all airmen. We've got a shooter on the runway. Now, I didn't see Stephen Paddock on the runway. I know you didn't see Stephen Paddock on the runway. So who the hell is on the runway? We hear air traffic control say we are shutting down 19 left and right. And then we recall turn off the lights on runway 19 are. Then we hear when you have a military transport. So what the hell is going on at the airport? That's Stephen Paddock just put a gun in his mouth and kill himself with the who's good.

[02:38:42] John Cullen: What's going on here? Got automatic gunfire at midnight. I mean, and then when they publish the footage from the from the helicopter from the Las Vegas Metro police helicopter that arrives at the crime scene, we never see the broken window on room 32-135. And you'd think the helicopter would make a beeline for that. Shine the light in the window. Put your hands up. Mr. Shooter, put your hands up where we can see him. No, they don't come there. And there's no footage of it. So there's no footage of gunfire coming from the room. A helicopter is all over the place. And then we have eyewitnesses saying they're shooting at us from the helicopters. Multiple eyewitnesses. Both at the venue and not at the venue. You got a guy standing there in Las Vegas Boulevard to fly in over his head. Right. So then it's covered up.

[02:39:46] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So that's that's the part that's the hardest for me to swallow. Why the hell is the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police covering up a Saudi shooting of a music festival?

[02:40:02] John Cullen: And why is the attorney general in Nevada? Not pursuing it. Yeah. So I believe what happened was the Las Vegas Metro Police Department hot shots come in the barge of the room. They break the door down and bang. Levi Hancock fires his weapon and we hear good shot. I think Levi shot Stephen Paddock, but I think Stephen Paddock was already dead. And so again, this isn't really pivotal, but it's kind of interesting. It's like, why? Who did Levi Hancock shoot? They breach the door and you hear, good shot. Who do you shoot? Stephen Paddock. I think so. I think he shot a dead Stephen Paddock

[02:40:45] Dr. Bret Weinstein: on the ground.

[02:40:46] John Cullen: No. So this is where you kind of have to have a sick mind like me. You have to be a little twisted. What would I do in the circumstance if I was one of those commandos and I had just killed that guy and I know the cops will be here in 20, 30 minutes or whatever. I prop the guy up in a chair and I stick a gun under his arm, aiming at the front door. Now, if you're a cop and you come in, you have to shoot that guy. He's aiming a gun at you. You don't know he's dead, but you're going to blow through that door. And I've got dead Stephen Paddock sitting in a chair with an AR-15 under his arm. Levi Hancock says, hands, bang. And he's he shoots Stephen Paddock. Now there's cherry pile over the chair that they propped them up in. And that's why we never see the second chair in any of the footage in 32-135. There's supposed to be two chairs next to that little coffee table.

[02:41:45] John Cullen: And we never see the second chair. I believe Levi Hancock shot a dead Stephen Paddock propped up in a chair. And now they're like, damn it. We just discharged a weapon. That's on body cam. We shot a dead guy. And now they're like, they realize this isn't even the guy who did it because the window is not broken. And so the cover up goes into motion immediately with these guys. And I believe what they did is they blew the window at 12:23 a.m. So that Stephen Paddock could be the shooter. Then the FBI shows up and Lombardo tells the FBI guy. Aaron Rouse, the special agent in charge. Yeah, we got this. Here's your guy. All right. He's your lone gunman. And there he is. Okay. 32-135. He's on the floor. Here's your weapons. Here's everything. And the FBI special agent in charge has already spoken to the secret service. State department. State department is visiting dignitary protection and not the FBI.

[02:42:53] John Cullen: It's state department. So the state department guys have already contacted the FBI. They're like, holy shit. We had MBS and we got out of here by the skin of our teeth. Lucky to be alive, man. This was crazy. So the FBI knows what happens. And they go in Lombardo's like, yeah, we got the guy. Here he is.

[02:43:13] Dr. Bret Weinstein: But why, you know, look, I can imagine a lot of why's why would our FBI be covering for?

[02:43:23] John Cullen: No, no, no, no, no, no. So hang on. All right. So hang on. What I think happened here is Lombardo lies to the FBI. The LVMPD broke the window. The LVMPD is trying to convince the FBI. They solve the case. They got the guy. They're done. And Rouse knows the real story. Rouse is because Lombardo wasn't there when they broke the window. Right. Lombardo is being told what's happened. Rouse knows it was an assassination attempt immediately. And Lombardo is telling him, well, here's the guy and the guy who did this. And the guy broke the window and all the guy and the FBI guy on Wednesday morning explains to Lombardo, Joe, this was a helicopter assault by commandos. You've been lying to the FBI, Joe. It appears you forged evidence. You realize it's a federal offense. It means I can take you into custody right this minute. You understand that? Joe Lombardo lied to the FBI and in the Wednesday press conference, he was almost in tears.

[02:44:29] John Cullen: He was shaken that Wednesday. It appears that's when Aaron Rouse explained to him, you've been lying to the FBI and we're aware of it. You forged the evidence. You dumped a box of brass on the floor. You broke the window because this guy had nothing to do with it. And the FBI knows all this and Lombardo gets caught and his whole demeanor changes that Wednesday. You can see it in the press conference and I believe that's what happened.

[02:45:01] Dr. Bret Weinstein: OK, to me, it's much more likely that something rotten inside of our apparatus prioritizes covering up for powder powerful Saudis more than it cares about a bunch of working class, random Americans who got shot up from the air. And so the cover up wasn't that the Las Vegas police lied to begin with and then, you know, covered in order to not reveal their lie. More likely the Saudis get to operate with impunity in our borders and even if Americans get killed, as long as it's not somebody special, who cares? That's going to be their approach. And then doesn't. Is it the chief of the Las Vegas police who ends up in Maui for Lahaina?

[02:46:01] John Cullen: It was the guy who was the head of the SWAT and canine team. So John Pelletier was the head of SWAT and the head of canine. And so we hear Levi Hancock talking to him. We hear him say, John, that that that that does. He's talking to Pelletier. Pelletier is the head of SWAT. And I guess he reported until Lombardo and he ends up leaving Vegas and heads out to Hawaii and becomes the police chief out there.

[02:46:26] Dr. Bret Weinstein: So he's the police chief in Lahaina. Yeah, in Maui. Yeah. In Maui during the fire. Right.

[02:46:35] John Cullen: Which I think is interesting. I think that was mostly incompetence. And again, this is 85 mile an hour winds out there, man.

[02:46:43] Dr. Bret Weinstein: That's you could have had. I'm just saying it's an interesting coincidence.

[02:46:47] John Cullen: No, it is. But to me, I think that's just a coincidence. You know, again, we were talking about coincidences earlier with HADES versus this. And I think we have to apply a fair rubric to all of them. What I was saying earlier about Dale Comstock and how this guy is probably one of the deadliest guys out there. We're being asked to believe that Stephen Paddock killed and injured more people than Dale Comstock ever did. We're being asked to believe that Stephen Paddock is the deadliest gunner in American history.

[02:47:25] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Without a motive.

[02:47:27] John Cullen: There is no operator. None. And I've met a bunch of them now that have killed 59 people and wounded 413 in 11 minutes. There's not an operator. So it means that if we believe the narrative, it means Stephen Paddock is the deadliest man with a gun that America has ever seen. Deadlier than Dale, dead deadlier than the deadliest snipers we have ever produced. Not one of them has killed 59 people in 11 minutes and wounded 413 with gunfire. And if we're asked to believe the narrative, that was all done with a thousand and fifty seven rounds.

[02:48:23] Dr. Bret Weinstein: With no motive and no desire, let's say that he was just a nutbag who felt like racking up a big number. He's then going to end his own life and not.

[02:48:36] John Cullen: Well, and he didn't open the curtain and he didn't move the chair. So the chair in front of the window that's broken wasn't moved. So he didn't move the chair. He didn't open the curtain. He kills 59 wounds 413. Dale never had numbers like that. And Dale's killed a lot of guys and that 59 in 11 minutes and wounded 413. We didn't do that in Venezuela. We killed 150 people to take one guy into custody. Yes, we did. We killed 150 people in Venezuela to take Maduro into custody. But Charlie Kirk didn't get that. Why not? What did Charlie Kirk do to warrant something of this magnitude? Something this complex, this sophisticated? And by the way, the fact that we've discovered it. Just set them back. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Because now they know that their program. Isn't terribly effective if YouTube guys can find them, right?

[02:49:58] John Cullen: So if guys on YouTube are detecting what's going on here. Maybe we're not going to forge ahead with HADES and the Sierra Nevada Corporation is really pissed off about that because they're, you know, they've got their they've got a forecast. They're forecasting revenue. Bombardier is forecasting revenue on this.

[02:50:20] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Well, I don't I don't know. I mean, I fully expect Tyler Robinson to be convicted and

[02:50:27] John Cullen: I get that. I get that. Or he'll die in prison, but he'll suicide. But the people on the inside, in other words, like I know from talking to Joe Kent. They're talking about these conversations that you and I are having are being talked about right now in Washington, D.C. I know this for a fact. I've spoken to Brigadier General Holt. I've, you know, I've talked to some pretty serious people and they're like, dude. They are talking about this in D.C. And what I'm suggesting is that the guys who thought that they were invisible, they thought they had impunity. They thought they could show up with HADES, take somebody out and nobody would know what the hell happened. And if it wasn't for a couple of us misfits, they would have gotten away with it.

[02:51:20] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Now, I do think they operate with impunity.

[02:51:23] John Cullen: Well, they do and they don't. Again, I think they now have to reconsider and damn it. We thought we're going to get in and get out and nobody's going to notice it. Next thing you know, Bret Weinstein is talking about Jimmy Dore is talking about. Collins talking about Baron Coleman starting to talk about it. And they're like, damn it, the horse is out of the barn. This stuff is not as secret as we thought it was. And now if they deploy it again sometime in the next 90 days, you don't think we're going to figure that out. If somebody gets assassinated, we're immediately looking up in the sky for drones. Where was HADES? Where was HADES? We just set that program back hundreds of millions of dollars. And that pisses off people that kill people.

[02:52:11] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Which is why I'm not suicidal. You don't sound suicidal. I'm having a great time, man. I just got the least bit suicidal. I'm also in excellent health. Feel great. Yeah. Yeah. I maintain my vehicle very carefully. You need an older car though, bro.

[02:52:28] John Cullen: You can't have anything with cheap PS. I'm driving a 22-year-old car, man. Nothing new for me. I don't want to end up like Michael Hastings.

[02:52:39] Dr. Bret Weinstein: Well, here's the thing. I'm not going off a cliff. I'm hoping that if something happens to me, that you will be intrigued by the dogs that didn't bark.

[02:52:47] John Cullen: If something happens to you, don't worry, man. I got it. All right. I appreciate that. I got it. Likewise.

[02:52:53] Dr. Bret Weinstein: I got it. All right. Well, this has been a fascinating conversation. Anything you want to say to close it out?

[02:53:02] John Cullen: Again, it's a repeating pattern and the frustration that you exhibited that you shared when you were talking with Jimmy Dore. The fact why is nobody talking about this? And I want to apply that same sentiment to the Charlie Kirk thing, to the Butler, the aspects of Butler, to the COVID outbreak, to the Vegas shooting. All these coverups, if there's a vital piece of information and a whole bunch of people seem to be avoiding it and then deriding the people we're talking about. I'm sure you're going to get a whole bunch of flack from your circle of people. You put Cullen on the show, you're talking about drones. What are you out of your mind? It's like, you don't see them. Why would you deride us for talking about something? We're just trying to figure out what's going on. Right. I mean, when I came on your show two years ago and started talking about, is there a shooter on the water tower?

[02:53:54] John Cullen: Got a whole bunch of people telling us there's a shooter on the water tower. We listened to the 911 call. The first thing they talk about is a water tower, but it gets derided. All of a sudden, everybody's out water tower. What are you guys nuts? It's the first thing Eli Crain said when he got out of the van in Butler. Who was on the water tower? Put me on the water tower. It's the first thing he said. That's where I'd be. And yet, if you mention it, you're derided like you're a cook. And then Erik Prince says, the guy took a 488 yard shot. And there's only one 488 yard solution, and it's to the water tower. So we've had cover up after cover up after cover up. It appears the government does not want the American public to know what's actually happening. But they want you to pay for it. And I don't know if that's tyranny, but. And you guys decide.

[02:54:53] Dr. Bret Weinstein: It sure ain't democracy. I will tell you, the thing that sticks out to me is if you focus on the official story, you can be blissfully unaware of the problems with it. But logically speaking, you're required to have all the hypotheses on the table and then falsify the ones that can't add up. You're just doing the job wrong when there's a lot at stake, you know, in a presidential assassination attempt, assassination of Charlie Kirk. If there's a lot at stake, then you have you might have a lone gun, of course. But you also have motive for others. Did any have the means and the opportunity? And if so, is there a hypothesis of the crime that assumes less and answers more of the evidence that exists? All of these dogs that didn't bark are things that need to be explained by any explanation of the crime. And the fact that you're just going to ignore them and therefore not answer them and say, hey, perfectly satisfying that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.

[02:56:03] Dr. Bret Weinstein: We don't have to answer where the RØDE wireless mic went and where the recording from it is and what it shows about the recording of the of the gunshot. Right. It's not up to us. We're just going to say, hey, there's DNA on the screwdriver. Done.

[02:56:18] John Cullen: HADES, Schmades. Right. Who cares about HADES? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who cares? They do that all the time. And come on. I mean, you know, watching the response that Freiheit had when you started mentioning the drones and he's like, you know, dismissing them and it's like, you know, they strap a rifle. I was like, dude, do your homework, man. Do your homework. And this is what we get to believe. Perseverance. People cling to those early beliefs. And when you introduce new evidence, it's really hard for people to calibrate. And this is why I tip my hat to you and to Jimmy Dore for having these conversations, opening up this dialogue and cracking the Overton window and making it possible for people to explore what really happened here and why is nobody talking about it? It's it's bizarre and it makes you wonder. Now I said this to you two years ago.

[02:57:06] John Cullen: We spoke privately and I said, I'm afraid a lot of your friends are CIA. And I, I did, I figured out I was married in an MI6 house and the guy who was my best is on my six and I didn't know it at the time. I now realize one of my old dear friends who at one point was in my will is Canadian intelligence. I didn't know it at the time, but this many years of doing this, you start to get to a point where you realize avoiding the vital evidence that is game changing in these cases is conspicuous avoidance and conspicuous avoidance again and again and again. Is just, it can't be explained really any other way. And so with that, I'll thank you and anybody wants to support my work. You guys go to patreon.com forward slash IAmJohnCullen. That's the only way I make a living is from patreon. None of my stuff is monetized at all. So for those of you who want to support this type of journalism and are pretty convinced, you're not sending your money to the CIA.

[02:58:14] John Cullen: Patreon.com forward slash IAmJohnCullen. Thank you, Bret.

[02:58:17] Dr. Bret Weinstein: All right. Excellent. Thank you, John. Fascinating conversation. And let's see if somebody comes up with some explanation of those drones that is satisfying. I sure hope so. Best possible thing for America is that this was Tyler Robinson acting alone, but there's an awful lot that needs to be explained before we get there. All right. So to everybody at home, thanks for joining us and catch you next time.

Credits

Music: “Marble Machine” by Wintergatan. This track can be downloaded for free at wintergatan.net. A free license to use this track in your video can be downloaded at wintergatan.net.