what makes you think so?
the part where we can see his potato image not cheeking it?
not claiming shot 10 hit the stock but to me it looks like he’s cheeking just before that 10th shot comes in.
Maybe there is other images i’m not aware of and you could share.
1 Like
You need to extend your timeline for…
- What Exactly, Precisely, Were Greg Nichols and “The Other Sniper’s” Whereabouts From 5:45 to 6:12?
Their jobs did not end upon shots being fired. Their job as Snipers posted on 2nd story would evolve to give intelligence on status of shooting suspect and or if any additional threats remained.
No matter where the two of them were when shots were fired they should have immediately returned to their post and put eyes on Crooks and reported to command and subsequently all responding LEO’s that suspect was down and not moving.
What we know form all audio evidence is this was never provided for the over 4 minutes it took first LEO’s to get up on X-Over where they proceeded as if Crooks could still be a threat. “Show me your hands” repeated multiple time before proceed toward him.
If GN and Other Sniper (OS) went back to post, if not already there, they would both put eyes on him and then one would have provided cover for the other to simply step out the E. Window, walk over and secure weapon and confirm dead in less than a minute.
So the bigger question is how could GN and OS both not only not be on their post but neither received or shared any communication with command (Lentz) from 18:08:20 (LEO first reports “Someone on the Roof” all the way to 18:16:XX when first LEO’s arrive at Crooks body.
3 Likes
He spins around and sits upright and looks at the crowd to the west. They exclaim about it right before the shot occurs.
I doubt he would have tried to pull off a sitting upright cheeked position anyways…sounds hella awkward.
One thing I’ve wondered is if he lost his glasses at shot 9. How bad was his vision, right? He may not have been able to see much once he lost those.
it is not for no reason…
the initial report from the Congressman may be wrong about which shot hit the stock, and I am not the only one who finds it remarkable how that stock got damaged…
if bullet 9 damaged the stock, crooks’ right chin should show serious damage, given the angle from which the SWAT officer took that shot (the bearing between crooks’ line of sight is about 12 degrees off that of the line of fire from the SWAT officer)… so, if shot 9 damaged the stock, the right bottom of crooks’ chin should have gone too…
but if you look at the following picture, it makes much more sense that shot 10 took him and that piece of stock out:
I do not know who fired that round, but in this position, it makes perfect sense that a bullet coming from the rally area leads to an entry wound in front of his left ear, exit wound around the back of his right chin and blowing away the upper rear part of the stock…
given this picture, it looks like he is turning to the crowd, indeed, AND the stock is at a cheeky position, which leads to the observation that bullet 10 makes much more sense to have damaged the stock AND taken out crooks…
this scenario would also explain
- why he was still able to function after he got shot at with bullet 9 (I do not know whether crooks even got injured by this bullet!)
- the long blood trail, as these entry/exit wounds would not have killed him on the spot, but have allowed
- his carotid arteries to pump out vast amounts of blood before he died, and this may also be an explanation
- why the first responders handcuffed him at arrival (no pictures/video of this event, so this is an informed guesstimate):
- if he had not yet bled out sufficiently, they may have observed some signs he was still alive leading to the handcuffing…
as you point out, it was the initial report from the Congressman that mentions shot 9 and the stock.
let’s wait and see whether the final report confirms this, because the damage does not match that bullet if it came from the SWAT officer…
1 Like
Due to YT policies he cannot show the photo he had seen.
Some officers have been punished since they released pictures of the dead body.
true, but we are a month further and we now have seen several of the images that used to be blurred, he…
the big blood trail across his face from under his ear and the pool of blood you see in this last image is very consistent with an injured carotid artery (you can feel your heartbeat/pulse when you put your fingers on this artery) as it is the main blood supply to the brain coming straight from the heart…
1 Like
you should also realize that these reports are not reflections of what really happened, but consensus statements written in such a way that they cover the **ses of the entities that risk getting investigated or sued based on such a report and present you the **ses of those that played their role, are no longer necessary and their elimination smoothens the path towards restoring “trust”…
the wording and nuances and stuff that is not mentioned in these reports are extremely important to notice and identify…
e.g., if you watch the recorded testimony of one of the snipers who was asked how many bullets were fired (I forgot his name, but he looked uncomfortably unhappy while questioned 
), he carefully replied that the report stated that 8 shell casings were recovered from the roof: he did not answer that simple question, but referred to that consensus report that states that 8 casings were found…
life is very simple: if you stick to the report, nobody gets hurt, but if you answer honestly, all hell breaks loose and uncontrollable sh*t hits the fan…
bottom line: none of the reports, testimonies and eye witness reports reflect what really happened. the only thing we can rely on is high resolution audio/visual material that shows the same thing from several angles, and the older and higher resolution the stuff, the better…
2 Likes
I beg to differ with you. I can point out more cases where reports, witness testimony, and video evidence corroborate each other than cases where they don’t. Having done incident investigations as part of my professional career for decades, and having given training and seminars on the subject, plus having a few magazine articles published, I have spent countless hours examining and corroborating evidence. Throwing two of the three categories out because you don’t trust it is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
You don’t have video evidence to tell you everything that happened. Video evidence doesn’t give you all of the radio communications, or the personal accounts. You have to examine all three categories to get the full picture.
Here is an example of comparing reports and radio communications with Nicol’s interview statements. It paint’s a picture of one of the major reasons why Crooks was able to elude law enforcement, if you can even use that term seeing how little notice law enforcement had to find him. Not a single bit of video evidence captures this aspect of the event.
Bottom line, you are doling out bad advice, and I am respectfully posting this to ensure others don’t follow it.
1 Like
it is ok to disagree.
when different sources corroborate a certain event, it is more likely to reflect what really happened, but you should realize that the introduction, conclusion and executive summary of a report are carefully crafted, worded and polished to cover the **ses of certain and guide you to a certain direction…
Scott Adams calls this “the documentary effect” (x.com): If you watch a documentary saying climate change is a crisis, it will look persuasive. If you watch a documentary that claims the opposite, it will also seem persuasive.
The only thing you can learn from a documentary is that documentaries are persuasive.
You can substitute documentary for report, witness statement, testimony, etc, etc…
Best be aware of this effect while reading and listening to whatever information…
A Frayed Mind (The Documentary Effect - A Frayed Mind) summarizes his lessons learned as follows:
Documentaries should come with a warning:
“We have designed this documentary to be as persuasive as possible. When you finish this there will be a profound change in what you believe to be true”.
This is the intended result of the Documentary Effect.
Upon hearing of this from Scott Adams, I realised I had been the victim of this many times over. Documentaries can put us in a cognitively vulnerable state, and like lambs to slaughter, we can be misled about what is true.
The Documentary Effect is what happens after watching a one-sided documentary (or book, article, podcast, etc). We get a comforting feeling of being informed about the subject, but this feeling is often a misplaced one and we may end up less informed than we were before - more on this later.
The Documentary Effect puts us into a state of overconfidence. Experts are testifying, producing indisputable facts left and right with premises leading to undeniable conclusions and it’s hard to imagine they could be wrong. It’s all too convincing.
It’s like that by design.
Considering documentaries are limited by time along with the vast depth of most subjects, it’s inevitable information is going to be omitted. If we’re unfamiliar with the topic we don’t know what is left out - it’s up to the creators to decide.
I have written many of such reports myself, and based on how you describe your professional career, we seem to have similar backgrounds and have been doing similar things over the past years.
I do not throw categories out of the window by default, but I never take things for granted, no matter which organization, committee, institute, title or quality is associated with the author(s)!
as I mentioned earlier, if the story does not fit what has been observed from different angles, there is something wrong with the story, and what I posted earlier about crooks’ injuries and the damage caused by the bullets 9 and 10 makes much more sense than what seems to have been written in the initial report of the Congressman…
1 Like
I think you’re comparing apples and oranges, but I’m not here to debate your point. If you care to see how much care I take in examining evidence, you might find this helpful to see that I not only don’t succumb to the “Documentary Effect,” quite the opposite. I examine every jot and tittle of the those aspects of the Detail Plan. (Note: I’ve yet to see a documentary made before an event occurs. I’m just saying.)
1 Like
yes, I appreciate your effort and the effort of several people who contribute to this investigation very much!
do not think that I sweep everything under the carpet on face value…
in this forum, we (intentionally plural, even though several forum members push not-so-hidden agendas) are trying to stick/get as close to the facts as possible, such that the analysis of these findings can be as reliable and fact-based as possible…
what I am saying is that it is important to be aware of the very simple fact that many reports and interviews/testimonies we are served and use in our research have been carefully phrased, worded and polished and are not necessarily factual but more consensus statements that have been filtered such that they do not contain too many incriminating actions or errors from one or the other party… and it is very interesting to identify what is missing in certain reports, as these are most likely points for which there was no consensus or are otherwise compromising the authors or parties/stakeholders involved…
so, do not take personal offense with what I am saying, I do not mean to attack you or any of us who is doing a great job, I only want to raise awareness that one should be very careful while taking reports, testimonies and eye witness statements at face value if they are not backed up with hard evidence…
1 Like
I wish, of course, that we had a proper autopsy report with drawings and pictures…but we don’t.
So let me speculate that this view of Crooks being shot on the lower left facial area and exiting even lower on the right side of his head does not comport with eyewitness testimony which we have from:
1 - Dave Stewart’s video where an eyewitness he was sheltering with said he saw his head explode and hair go flying (or something like that, it’s from memory)
2 - The Source 4 video where people react and go “ooooohhhh” upon the tenth shot, which I interpret as being inconsistent with a clean through-and-through, and more consistent with a more kinetic event where things go flying (although the red mist and strong side-lighting could have made dramatic).
3 - Frame-by-frame video analysis which appears to show stuff flying through the air after that tenth shot, at least a few large fragments of something. Hair?
Sadly, all we have so far is this “report” which only indicates a gunshot (singular) to the head:
Wait! Hold up.
I must have missed something important. How was it determined that Nicol came out door 13?
I’ve been operating on the assumption of Door 9 because that’s what’s in the AAR.
2 Likes
AFAIK we don’t have any hard evidence Nicol came out of door 13. No dashcam or bodycam, etc.
The witness saw all muzzle flashes, but he was not able to count.
That isn’t how angles work.
Crooks may have lifted his head.
All it takes is the shot barely missing his face and striking the stock in the right spot to account for the damage to the rifle. It very well may have struck it at the right spot and it splintered.
I just don’t see how you can make the claim that shot 9 definitely did not damage the stock. Not yet.
Someone randomly threw a theory out there that the shot 10 hit the stock. That was it. Then other people started parroting that.
Maybe there is uncensored video that makes it more clear what happened.
The best way I can explain how both Door 13 and door 9 happened, is by explaining how inaccurate the AAR is, and how muddy it makes the waters. First, you have to remember that the 18:05 timeline entry was off by 3 minutes, so that should also apply to the start time of the following entry of 18:06, correcting it to 18:03-18:11. Then you have to recognize how the 18:06-18:11 entry and related maps are confusing because they themselves are confused. If you have questions after reading this portion of my analysis of the AAR, I’ll gladly answer any remaining questions.
It seems like the argument is that because Nicol saw Crooks from the northwest side of the building, and then bounded down the stairs and opened the door, he was coming out of door 13?