So It's Back To First Principles

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
2200

i don’t know how familiar you are with my work. but I rarely make assumptions or speculations. I’m primarily interested in analyzing the evidence available, and whenever possible seek a second or third form of corroborating evidence.

So, for those on this forum who might fall for your critique of my inference that the bulge in his pocket is most likely a rangefinder, based on available evidence, below are three forms of evidence that attest to Crooks having a rangefinder. I challenge you to do the same. Provide at least 3 different forms of evidence that describes Crooks being in possession of a different object, one that has a similar shape as the bulge in his pocket. I’ll wait.

1. The Beaver County After Action report.

image
image1001×687 121 KB

2. Witness testimony.

As reported by ABC:

“Nicol noticed an unattended bike and backpack. And he saw the man looking up and around, then pulling a rangefinder from his pocket. There was no apparent reason to have a distance-gauging device at a political rally featuring the man who, in a few days, would accept his party’s presidential nomination.”

Source: Local SWAT team blames Trump assassination attempt on lack of planning, communication - ABC News

As reported by CNN:

“The officer, Greg Nicol, zoomed in with his binoculars and saw that the skinny young man with long hair and glasses was holding a rangefinder, a device used by shooters to calculate the distance to a target. He had it pointed directly at the stage where Trump was about to speak.”

3. Radio communications stating that a rangefinder was found with Crooks.

As reported by The Washington Post:

“’Just an FYI, we had a younger white male, long hair, lurking around the AGR building,’ a local countersniper said at 5:42 p.m., according to a time-stamped transcript of encrypted radio communications obtained by The Washington Post. ‘He was viewed with a range finder sighting the stage. … We lost sight of him.’”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/03/trump-rally-police-radio-transmissions/

As reported by TribLive:

"Amid the din of a helicopter and chatter on the police radio, officers described finding a remote control on Crooks, no more than 6 inches long and powered by a 9-volt battery.

“They’re wanting pictures of it for the bomb squad,” someone said.

An officer described it as looking very similar to a garage door opener, with an extendable antenna and the numbers 1 through 12 on it.

Investigators reported finding home-made explosive devices in Crooks’ vehicle and another in his Bethel Park home.

“He has a range finder and cell phone, as well,” one officer said.

“If that phone starts ringing …” one officer instructed, “call me in case he’s got someone working with him.”

Source: 'A failure on multiple levels': Records reveal security lapses at Trump rally

2 Likes
2201

Yeah, it seems like the reports are strong. But the device didn’t get photographed on the roof, did it?

3 Likes
2202

No photographs have been released anyways, but if you read the last source, an officer stated over the radio that it was found with him on the roof. Specifically where he doesn’t say.

2 Likes
2203

At the bottom line, no photo of evidence. That’s bad.
Three times they missed to take a picture. First at magnetometers, second when Greg saw him, third at the final scene.

3 Likes
2204

Crooks may have stashed it in his backpack or something. Note we also didn’t see his car keys.

3 Likes
2205

If you discount first-hand radio communications from an officer on the roof stating he had a range finder, I wonder how you would accept a photo of said range finder, which was most likely taken at the scene as well as in the FBI evidence room, just not publicly released. My guess is your claim would be it was photoshopped, or the FBI used one of their own range finders to photograph.

2 Likes
2206

We didn’t see his underwear, either, but I’ll bet it was logged in as evidence and photographed as well as the rangefinder and his keys.

We can’t complain on the one hand that the FBI isn’t releasing all of the evidence, and then on the other assume no evidence exists.

2 Likes
2207

Well, I don’t think I complain about the FBI not releasing evidence. I think I’m more on the side that anything taken by the FBI might as well have been teleported to the sun. I’m just finding it a tad odd that we don’t seem to have a photo with the rangefinder, but I bet it was just in the bag, and the contents of the bag didn’t get photographed because it happened to be too far from the body or something.

2 Likes
2208

You have to remember that we have photographs taken of objects at the scene, upon initial access to the roof, by ESU or other responding officers, and we have bodycam footage.

The photographs were taken to communicate key information. In the case of the remote detonating device, it was to alert others of a potential explosive device somewhere. Those were not photographs taken by the investigators cataloging what was found at the scene.

Then we have bodycam footage, which although it is itself evidence, it was not used to document evidence.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If we discount every bit of evidence as being tainted or fabricated, why even bother with investigating the event.

3 Likes
2209

I think you’re just putting more cynicism on me than I actually have. I’d just like it if we had seen this device somewhere in the piles of stuff we’ve looked through, that’s all. I really am not saying anything other than “I wish we had a photo of that thing so we could say oh, OK, that really seems to be a real thing”

3 Likes
2210

I agree but since it wasn’t on whole shirt, I assume mostly blood. IMHO

2211

Don’t take it personally.

They wiil make that photoshop tomorrow. Maybe with less pleasure.

2212

Like any investigation, you find as much evidence as you can to paint a picture of what happened, but you never get all of the evidence you would like to have because it simply doesn’t exist. In this case, it’s because those who have documented the evidence haven’t released it. So, we are left with the next best thing, which is to make inferences based on the evidence we do have.

  1. To Nicol, the range finder was real, based on both his radio communications and his testimony, which was included as evidence in the After-Report.

  2. To the officer on the roof who stated, “he has a range finder,” it was real, and thus corroborates Nicol’s radio communications and testimony.

It is not a big leap from there to infer (not assume, which is a guess not based on evidence) that an object having the shape of a range finder captured on cell phone and dashcam video being inside a pocket, was a range finder.

If the radio communications stated that the suspicious person was seen playing cards, smoking a cigarette, and chewing gum while sitting on the picnic table, I might make a different inference. But then again, I highly doubt that the sighting of someone doing that would set off the flurry of radio communications and a manhunt by multiple law enforcement agencies. The range finder sighting is what raised the suspect from a suspicious person to a person of interest. It was, in fact, a pivotal moment in the sequence of events. But I digress.

I rarely make assumptions and will typically indicate it when I do by either stating it as a speculation or a guess. In my investigative efforts, I use logic and reasoning to make inferences to complete the picture when hard evidence is not available.

image
image804×162 12.4 KB

image
image849×483 130 KB

If and when new evidence comes along, I analyze that evidence and modify my inference accordingly. My posts in this forum are a testimony to that. Case in point, my change in belief of where Crooks’ car was parked after the FBI released the trunk photo.

2 Likes
2213

joke: I know a forum member who is very proficient with photoshop and doctoring animated gifs…
let’s wait and see what he comes up with :slight_smile:

but seriously…
image

the picture above is a screenshot from the video you posted earlier:

the contours of whatever is in his trouser pocket does not look even close to the rounded shapes of a typical rangefinder, which is very compact!

btw: why would this contour not be similar to that of his wallet?
in other words: where is/was his wallet? :slight_smile:
that thing in his trousers can very well have been his wallet and his access ticket to the rally area!

2 Likes
2214

Let’s go shopping for a range finder, shall we. Oh, look, they seem to come with a carrying case. Imagine that!

P.S. I’m still waiting.

image

2 Likes
2215

yes, you are right, but this makes the device even bulkier and as such even less plausible that the thing in his trousers is a range finder…

and if he used that range finder on that roof: where is the case and where is the range finder?

it simply does not make sense that it was a rangefinder in a case :slight_smile:

I think it is his wallet…

1 Like
2216

I’m not basing my investigation and analysis on what you think. I’m basing it on the evidence we have available to us and making inferences based on that evidence.

2217

very well. that is how it should be…
and as there is no evidence, but only allegations, that he had a range finder, you should treat it as such and not assume that it is a range finder in his trouser pocket…

and, btw, did any of the testimonies that alleges he “has” a rangefinder also specify that he put it in his trouser pocket? :slight_smile:

2218

I think I covered the use of the term “assumptions” above.

And as for “alleges,” see this about the officer on the roof giving an account of what he found as documented by radio communications.

P.S. I’m still waiting.

2 Likes
2219

I never said the fast buriers of information had photoshopped the evidence photos they released.

I said many times that the only thing I consider usable evidence is audio/visual footage that has been publicly available as close as possible to the event and that higher resolution footage has higher credibility than lower resolution footage…

I also said many times that testimonies and reports and eye witness reports are not to be trusted whatsoever, unless they get corroborated by audio/visual evidence…

paper is very willing and forgiving and the author is the one who determines nuances and what gets published or not. things for which there is no consensus get omitted from a report, and things that may lead to the author or his/her friends getting into trouble get rephrased such that they are less damaging… CYA rules reports and testimonies… if you swear by their correctness, you will be deceived, and the day you realize that you were fooled by believing these testimonies at face value will be very eye opening to you.

e.g., about the photo of the rifle that was released as part of the evidence photos is what it is, I noted that it only shows the right side of the rifle, and I added that it is a pity that it only shows the right side, as it turns out that the left side may have been damaged by a bullet fired by the SWAT officer who fired bullet 9 at crooks…

as there is no photographic support for the assumption that that rifle/buffer tube/stock has damage at the left side, it is an assumption and no evidence…

1 Like