Probably, but they should have checked there when GN came out of door 13! I saw them too in the dashcam of the officer who tried to find out where his family was.
Here is my perspective on what I think you’re alluding to. If I suspect one statement from a witness based on the grounds I don’t believe them, then I have to put all of their statements in question. That leaves me without evidence to analyze, so I’m left with pure speculation. When I do that, my statements are not based in truth and I’m essentially doing the same thing I’ve accused the witness of.
I’ve interviewed countless witnesses throughout my career doing incident investigations, and their statements tend to fall under one of these categories:
- Honest statements that prove to be factually correct.
- Honest answers that prove to be factually incorrect, which are attributable to the fallibility of human memory.
- Statements that are not given honestly, but are also not given with malicious intent, that may or may not be factually correct. They are basically guessing or agreeing and trying to say the right thing.
- Dishonest statements given in hopes of avoiding blame, for themself or a buddy, though not necessarily made with malicious intent. Usually, they are factually incorrect with a grain of truth.
- Dishonest statements given with malicious intent to undermine an investigation or place blame on someone other than themself. They are factually incorrect in their entirety, but often contain a grain of truth.
I think that covers them all. The point being is that it’s not a matter of black and white, lie or truth. That’s why witness statements have to be corroborated with other evidence, such as documentation, other witness testimony, video or photographic evidence, etc. This is especially true when you’re not able to interview someone in person and get the non-verbal cues that help you determine wat category they might fall under. Even then, if you believe someone is falsifying statements, the burden of proof falls on you.
If I’m just going to discount all statements, throwing the baby out with the bath water, in this investigation, why even bother. At that point all we’re doing is having arguments over each other’s speculations. That’s not what I’m here for.
So yes, I typically assume someone’s statements to be correct until proven incorrect. And my apologies for dumping this on you, I’m just getting a bit jaded from some non-sensical critique lately from those who wouldn’t know objectivity if their life depended on it. Thanks for letting me vent, though. 
1 Like
Yes, and that room was very small, yet appears to have significant wall space from the outside. And why did he choose, or why was he only allowed to, film from that window? Inquiring minds want to know.
1 Like
Well, I’m just speculating here, they may have known that it was a dead end and were trying to find Crooks on his way to Sheetz, or backtracking. Hard telling, not knowing, and hindsight being 20/20 and all.
I want to thank you Chris for all your content, especially your approach to the attempt on Trump. Best stuff out there. I have no new raw information to share with your community here (so dang smart they are!). Rather, I am just a seasoned observer of these types of events and I’ve learned how to twist the kaleidoscope a bit and maybe tease out some understanding. Not evidence, just understanding. A man needs be able to sleep at night; something all of us have been robbed of since J13. Apologies if my rambling has already been posted here by others. I’ve not read the whole board.
FBI Behavior: The FBI’s obstruction and lack of communication is very telling, but of what exactly? First, the fact that they have not yet fed us a complete case closed “lone gunman” story is telling us that the event is not of their crafting. The intelligence services are the masters of these events and they don’t make mistakes. If it was their operation, run through their channels, with their assets, we would have had the patsy’s identity along with a wacky manifesto within an hour or two; case closed. Instead, rewatch the FBI press conference from the late evening of J13. That FBI representative is scared shitless. The event had all the tell-tale signs of a patsy-handler-pro event, but it wasn’t THEIRS. That freaked them out. If it wasn’t theirs, whose was it? FBI behavior is telling us there was no “lone gunman” at Butler. We should believe them and spend zero time considering it.
Who’s Event?: There’s much less available to help understand this. It would have to be some entity with access to the knowledge of how to craft a patsy-handler-pro event, and the operational infrastructure to pull it off. Remember, this would have to be done away from US intelligence services. Perhaps Blackrock’s connection to Crooks is a place to start. Blackrock could have been the source of organizational infrastructure for the operation. Who sponsored it? Cui Bono. Whoever did it, it was very sloppy.
LIHOP versus MIHOP: Unfortunately, the way these events are crafted entails both LIHOP and MIHOP. Never one without the other. And to facilitate proper execution you segregate the LIHOP and MIHOP operations into separate organizations. The number of people who know the whole operation is very, very few. At Butler, USSS had the LIHOP operation. The MIHOP operation was embedded within the LEO presence. It is a big mistake to presume it’s only either LIHOP or MIHOP, because LIHOP is obvious and proven first. Once you’ve bagged the LIHOP and scolded those responsible (LIHOP is incompetence, never a crime), the review is shut down thus protecting the MIHOP operation. The USSS is clearly the designed scapegoat here, complete with MSM hero-making for the LEOs.
Was There a Drill? Often the more sophisticated operations that involve multiple different governmental organizations are executed in the context of a drill being run at the same time and place. 9/11 and 7/7 are both well-documented examples of this “running a drill” fingerprint. In such a drill you have a good guy team and a bad guy team, and the drill is designed for the two teams to take opposing positions and practice through elements like command, control and communication without any live fire. The drill in essence imposes a stand down, or delays prompt reaction because everyone thinks what they are seeing is just the drill. Presence of a drill would explain key elements:
• the bizarre pacman USSS perimeter with the AGR ESUs physically opposing the USSS;
• the open widows along the second floor of AGR facing the stage area;
• Local ESUs placed within those rooms versus the rooftops (that’s an attacking posture, not defensive);
• the fact that USSS and the LEOs were on separate communication channels; and
• the length of time for Hercules 1 to get their shot off even though they had a far better view of Crooks than did the local ESU guy who took shot #9, and had turned to the north a full minute and a half (estimated?) before Crooks took his first shot.
Drill Goes Live (Where’s the Handler?): Does this mean all the LEOs are active in the MIHOP? No, presence of the drill induces their benign participation. A very small number are actually MIHOP actors, but they are embedded within the LEO presence. Who are we looking for? Well, in one oft-used template for these gun events there is a patsy who ends up dead, check. Then there is a handler and at least one professional shooter (you can’t trust the patsy to shoot). Identifying the handler should be the focus of next steps because his role is most critical to the drill going live. It is the handler’s job to get the patsy to his event position on time and with the incriminating evidence on him. That is the handler’s one and only job. If the handler fails, drill does not go live. Sound like a babysitter? Exactly. These patsies can’t be trusted to get into position at the designated time, and often they need assistance to subvert whatever surveillance is present. Who’s the handler? I’d be very concerned about the 3rd ESU sniper who left early “by design.” We don’t know where he went and if he has a documented alibi for where ever he was at the time of the shooting. Maybe he had a babysitting job to tend to. IT IS A MISTAKE TO THINK BECAUSE HE LEFT EARLY HE IS NOT A KEY TO THE ANSWER.
Greg Nichol (Pro Shooter?): Wow. Much of the sloppiness here centers around Greg and I’m sure the FBI is none too pleased with him. He’s making the cleanup exceptionally difficult. It’s certainly possible he’s the shooter. But it could also be the 2nd ESU sniper who reportedly left the overwatch position, yet has gone unnamed. They are hiding his name while giving us Greg. My bet is the shooter is this unnamed ESU sniper. What was Greg’s job? Somebody had to signal to the shooter that the drill has gone live (i.e., the patsy is a “GO”). That is essentially what Greg did with his final slightly incoherent text mentioning Sheets. It has built in plausible deniability and was likely predefined as the “GO” code word.
Where Does This Go Next (Tehran?): It feels like they are trying to steer this story to an “Iran did it” myth. It serves them many ways. The FBI already claims they have a documented assassination threat from Iran pre-Butler. This may have been the claimed context for running an OPFOR drill. Claiming a national security threat achieves a lot. Shuts down all inquiries and silences the LEOs under threat of prosecution.
I really enjoy your content Chris, and your community. Everyone stay safe. Wacky days.
5 Likes
BTW, if I understand correctly, the dashcam belonged to the same officer who later got boosted up to the roof and saw the shooter there (even if it didn’t register on his body cam). If he had family at the rally, I’m guessing that he was not in on the plot!
2 Likes
@cmartenson can we talk about this possibility? Could this explain the different sounds the shots made? Muffled, then sharp and rapid. I have a graphic image of Corey C. after he was shot (but not sure if posting would be respectful) and would like to take what this Dr. is saying and put it to the test. Since we all know the focus and wild goose chase was on Crooks, maybe we are missing something very important? Where is the information about the woman who was shot in the forearm and hand? Maybe those wounds wouldn’t coincide with Crooks rooftop position.
www.aol.com/nbc-news-correspondent-dasha-
Link that works. Her interview with Joseph saying shots were coming from behind.
2 Likes
It seems like USSS contacted Butler, and Butler decided things like that, and then enlisted Beaver. If we look at the after-action report by Beaver, we see “Materials Provided by Butler Command” with little gun icons over the windows rather than on the roof.
1 Like
If you refering to the screenshot posted by VegasPatriot (post 215), then your understanding is wrong. These are different officers.
This is officer BWC2-122109 => this guy went around AGR (southside) to the parking lot, he’s the one trying to reach family. His bodycam took the footage VP took a his screenshot from.
This is officer BWC2-122110 => this guy was boosted up the roof (and stayed there until the bodycam footage ends)
1 Like
OK, thanks for the correction (a lot of moving parts here!). But then I would still conclude that that local officer (from the Butler City PD? ) was not in on the plot.
First off all, thank you for showing respect to Corey and his family and not posting the image here.
The lady that you say was shot in the forearm and hand. I think that statement is wrong. In the video you took the screenshots from (I assume it’s the same video I’ve seen) watch and LISTEN carefully what the one SS guy says at 10:55-10:57 (She’s not hit, she passed out).
2 Likes
Yes. Also, after looking at how they are manhandling her hands without care, she couldn’t be the one. But, I believe this Dr. and will continue the search to find the woman.
So, you have seen that his wound was to the back of the head in that video.
Don’t you think it would be worthwhile to check around that area to find the woman who may have been shot? Have you any information about that?
On the face of it, it is odd that we are looking for how the shooter brought his backpack to the AGR building and we are discounting the backpack in plain sight by the bike because the bike owner was allegedly found and interviewed (and the backpack presumably searched). But is this story airtight? What was bike owner’s alibi, and are we sure that the LEO who interviewed him was not in on the plot?
1 Like
There was a picture of his car that was parked at a greenhouse business right across from AGR. If that was in fact his car he could have easily gone and got his backpack out of his car. Also a report had come out that after he flew his drone around he went and put it in his car and drove around a bit and moved his car possibly to their spot closer to AGR. So that’s why he was unaccounted for during that time. It was an FBI report from about 2 weeks ago
I can’t find the video now, and you shouldn’t take my word for it, but I did see the video where the traveling bike guy was interviewed, and he explained that he likes to ride really far. I was inclined to believe it.
Crossed my mind: Nicols keeps his pistol at his side straight after the shooting (as he is emerging from building) to protect the weapon which murdered the patsy
Once Nicols saw Yearick successfully on the roof, he met with Crooks at a predetermined place and executed him. Problem with this theory is that presumably his clothes would have blood splatter.
1 Like
Chris was asked by Bret Weinstein on the Darkhorse Podcast, how a conspiracy could involve this many people. Good question. But one should answer with a couple of questions…
Out of the 535 members of the legislature, what percentage, do you think, are subject to ongoing bribery or blackmail? Has this worked well for those seeking to control the process?
1 Like
I don’t think it necessarily involves very many people. To me, most of the blame rests on whoever was on the other side of the radio from Hercules. That might just be one person, some USSS agent. Then, we have some very suspicious planning, perhaps by one person at Butler, or maybe the same person in the USSS, and very suspicious behavior from two locals. So maybe 3, maybe 4 people.
