News · Report
Who tried to reproduce the Charlie Kirk Google Trends searches, and what they found
At least two independent researchers and AFNPT attempted to reproduce the viral searches. None could make them behave like a reliable record; the results shifted or failed to replicate.
By Americans for Transparency · Published
The short answer
Several people tried to reproduce the viral Fort Huachuca and Charlie Kirk searches independently. Gary Melton and James Li each walked through the method on video and could not make it produce a stable, reliable result. AFNPT re-ran the searches with the original settings and about 1,600 controls, and found the spikes moved between runs. The shared conclusion is that the charts cannot be reproduced on demand, which is what a reliable record would require.
- Independent researchers Gary Melton and James Li examined the method on video.
- Neither could turn it into a stable, reproducible result.
- AFNPT re-ran the original searches plus about 1,600 controls and found the spikes shifting between runs.
- A biostatistician's conclusion matches: reliable readings need many aggregated samples, not one chart.
Why reproduction is the test
If a chart is evidence of a real event, independent people using the same settings should be able to get the same chart. That is the ordinary test applied to any empirical claim. Several people applied it to the viral searches.[1]
The independent attempts
Gary Melton, posting as Paramount Tactical, worked through the method and argued that Google Trends is not a historic record of who searched what and when. James Li, on his channel, walked through the Kirk searches and could not make them hold up as proof of foreknowledge. Both are recorded attempts by people outside AFNPT.[2][3]
These are self-published video analyses, not peer-reviewed work, and are listed here as that. What they have in common is that neither could reproduce a stable result from the method.[2][3]
AFNPT's attempt
AFNPT re-ran the Fort Huachuca searches with the original settings and added about 1,600 control searches. The spikes landed on different dates when the same query was run hours apart, and invented names spiked too. The method did not reproduce a fixed chart, which is consistent with Google's own account of how the tool behaves on rare terms. The full record is here.[1][4]
Where the expert view lands
A University of Sydney biostatistician who studies Google Trends reached the same place from theory: accurate results require aggregating many samples, because any single pull carries noise. That is consistent with every reproduction attempt above.[5]
“To get accurate results, one has to aggregate many samples of Google Trends data”
Questions people ask
Were these attempts by Kirk's critics?
Not uniformly. They are independent analysts examining a method. The relevant point is procedural: people applying the same settings could not reproduce a stable chart, whatever their views on the broader case.
Does a failed reproduction prove nothing happened?
No. It shows the charts cannot carry the weight placed on them. A method that will not reproduce cannot establish foreknowledge; it also cannot rule it out. It is simply the wrong instrument.
Sources
- [1]Americans for Transparency, The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked, October 7, 2026. AFNPT review
- [2]Paramount Tactical (YouTube), Google Trends is not a Historic Record., November 13, 2025. Public post
- [3]51-49 with James Li (YouTube), Charlie Kirk Shooting — They Knew BEFORE It Happened?!, October 14, 2025. Public post
- [4]Google, FAQ about Google Trends data. Official source“These apparent one-off spikes should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.”
- [5]The Conversation (Jacques Raubenheimer, University of Sydney), How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories, December 17, 2025. News report“To get accurate results, one has to aggregate many samples of Google Trends data”