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
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
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
I agree but since it wasn’t on whole shirt, I assume mostly blood. IMHO
Don’t take it personally.
They wiil make that photoshop tomorrow. Maybe with less pleasure.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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
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 
but seriously…
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?
that thing in his trousers can very well have been his wallet and his access ticket to the rally area!
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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
I think it is his wallet…
1 Like
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.
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?
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
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
I assure you that I do not accept evidence like witness testimonies documented by the propaganda arm of the deep state at face value. That’s why I corroborate it with other evidence. Rather, I test the evidence for validity when necessary. If you’ve read any of my work on the examination of inaccuracies in the Butler and Beaver County documents, or Nicol’s testimony (below), you would know to what lengths I go to evaluate the evidence. While a news article documenting interviews might be slanted, that does not mean that the underlying testimony is false. Multi-million-dollar awards in civil lawsuits for defamation of character tend to curb such fabrication.
This is the end result of a detailed examination and analysis of evidence available for a specific section of the overall timeline of events. They are conclusions based on a thorough analysis, not speculation. Had I thrown out all of the media documentation of witness interviews, this information would have been impossible to discover.
3 Likes
Unknown non-flying object
2 Likes
nice catch.
Could you let us know which of the 3 Beaver County ESU bodycams are these pictures refering to and what are the specific timestamps?
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to this. I got sidetracked this morning.
It does look like him, for sure. Just to check to see if other evidence contradicted him being in that location at that time, there is this. We see his last known location on his bodycam as being as being by the greenhouses at 19:09.
It would not take him long to drive to a different driveway and walk to that spot near the tree. Or walk all the way there for that matter.
So yes, It appears to be him to me. That helps explain why the cop whose bodycam captured him stayed in that one spot for so long. He was talking to the Chief. Thanks for pointing it out!
1 Like
Would M. Pearson as Lt of the Butler Township PD wear a patch of the Butler County Sheriff Office (Sheriff Michael Slupe)?
And why should Pearson as the Butler Twp commander (DJT Detail), almost without moving at all, just hanging around with some Sheriffs for more than 4 minutes with little to no conversation, instead of being with his own men?
It also looks like different glasses than the one BWC2-122104 is wearing. I’m not buying it that this is Lt M. Pearson.
Pearsons car also doesnt’t seem to be at this location.
2 Likes
That’s a good point, I didn’t look closely at the patch.
2 Likes
wasn’t Pearson also wearing a tactical vest when last seen at the northern AGR entrance? Of course he could have put it away in the meantime but we shouldn’t forget, it’s only a little bit more than 1h since the shots rang out.