- also comes out with Trump.
1 Like
- was not on site until Trump was (came with motorcade).
p80
[Won’t let me embed any more, or reply any more]
-
was working to turn cars around for exit around 5:52pm, and to stay with protectee
p92
NO EMBED -
was covering Trump with her body just after shooting began
p145
NO EMBED
whereas
The Site Agent (not holster lady):
- Was not near the stage when the shooting began
p135
NO EMBED
Stayed after the motorcade left
p163
NO EMBED
From the footage this only matches up with the identifications I made.
From the SS transcripts it seems all 3 work together on the security plan, with the Lead Advance Agent seeming to have the final/most say. It then goes to the Pittsburgh SAIC, and further up. (I’d have to go digging for page numbers)
Can I really not reply anymore here?
Nice find with the hospital line. That could have saved me a bit of time.
Happy to contribute.
But CNN didn’t specify which door did they?
I wasn’t there to see him exit the door, so I’m not 100% certain. 
I am sure, however, that the CNN and ABC reporting of it is referring to Door 13.
Here are the pertinent aspects of those reports from my analysis:
WI - “Just after 6 p.m., Nicol, looking out a window on the northwest side of the building, spotted Crooks again. This time the young man was running and carrying a black backpack.” (Source: CNN)
NOTE: The CNN article was published 18 days before the FBI released evidence photos, which showed the patsy had a black backpack.
WI - “Nicol moved through the building trying to shadow Crooks, who was outside, and keep eyes on him. But Nicole lost sight of Crooks as Nicol made his way down to the building’s first level.” (Source: ABC)
Nicol was in the NW corner of AAR 2 when he spotted Crooks near the Door 14 picnic table, and then running in between the buildings. Directly below that is Door 13. As reported, he made his wat down to “the building’s first level,” not “a building’s first level.” AAR 2 is the only two-story building in the south portion of the AGR complex.
AGR 6 is a single-story building, and there is no window from AGR 6 where he could have seen Crooks near the Door 14 picnic table and running in between the buildings. So, he couldn’t see Crooks and he couldn’t go downstairs in AGR 6, so I am sure that as reported by CNN and ABC he did not go out Door 9 at that time. Dashcam video shows him going out Door 9 after the shooting.
Was Nicol, CNN, and/or ABC lying about what he did immediately after his 6:02 pm radio call? That’s possible, but not having seen any contradictory evidence, I highly doubt it.
1 Like
As promised, here is the pic of Matthew James Shaffer from his Instagram that sealed his ID for my group. Make of that hair in the back what you will, this is the man in black on the roof.
1 Like
Did you miss this. Chris? It will save you the time making your case.
1 Like
Yeah I got that a bit too late. I couldn’t reply any more so I had to edit my last comment to add the hospital comment reply afterwards. But I think I can reply again now. How does it work here?
I think you are assuming too much with the “down to the building’s first level” line. He could have then moved to the other building before going out the door, right? That article doesn’t even specifically mention him going out a door, does it?
As I said, it probably was door 13, but I wouldn’t bet too much on it.
3 Likes
Hi Ken. I apologize for not not making the connection to your username in the forum. I do recall seeing your posts through the course of the investigations. As for Shaffer, I admit to rushing the change of his field photo, recalling from somewhere he was the one standing by Crooks’ backpack on the roof. Thank you for correcting my error once again. I have another misidentification to correct, as well, as was pointed out to me in the posts above.
Thank you, as well, for the compliment. Hopefully others who have contributed to my work will see it.
As for the hair sample, I’ll pass on that because it doesn’t fit the type of work I’m doing, which is primarily a timeline analysis of the evidence to paint a picture of what happened.
4 Likes
He does facially look like Shaffer, but to start with this picture does not show his hair, and as that is the issue you bring up I don’t see a basis for hair recognition. Secondly, hair is malleable, you can grow it longer if you please or cut it as you wish. When was it that this photo was taken or posted? Third, I find it to be quite the leap to go from a tuft of hair sticking out the back of his helmet, notably the same color as his own hair and not the same color as the alleged shooter, to your hypothesis. I’m not seeing this, not even evidence of it.
3 Likes
I was going to post a few slides from my analysis, but decided not to since you said you read it. This slide has the excerpt about “the building.”
This portion of my analysis is just presenting the evidence my analysis is based on, as well as noting key aspects of that evidence, as you can see in the next slide.
In this next slide, you’ll see the reporting was that he “pushed open” the door. Later in my analysis I make the argument that he most likely did not exit the door.
Here is a link to my full analysis, which I am planning to update with the new information from the radio logs, which upon a cursory review I doubt will change my understanding of the Door 13 event as reported by CNN and ABC, just like the Task Force report hasn’t.
2 Likes
Others in the forum might know more about how it works, but apparently after a certain number of posts you get recognized by the system as being an active participant (I forget the term used), and that might open up additional features. That’s my guess, anyways.
6 Likes
I just don’t think we can take the comment from ABC about going down to the building’s first level, and the comment from CNN about him pushing a door open and assume he didn’t walk to the other building in between those events. ABC and CNN didn’t specifically report anything about door 13. Might be a fair assumption but it’s an assumption nonetheless.
I did change a part of my documentary based on your analysis. I had a map showing him going out door 9 at that time, mainly based off the AAR. But I didn’t change it to door 13, I just don’t specify which door anymore, because I am not sure.
I’m also not sure the AAR is talking about 2 events in that one slide, and that it’s referring to Nichol going out of door 9 after the shooting.
I think your work is amazing by the way, I’m pretty sure you won’t take my 2 disagreements here the wrong way
1 Like
I flagged an earlier post of yours alerting the admin to your challenge. Hopefully they can resolve this.
5 Likes
Thanks, maybe it’s already been resolved because before it said I couldn’t reply here anymore and needed to either edit my old comments or reply to another topic. But now I can reply again
3 Likes
I am not taking anything the wrong way. As others in the forum can testify, I appreciate being challenged.
I prefer to use the term “inference,” which is the product of inductive reasoning.
Inductive Reasoning (also known as ‘inductive’ logic or inference) is drawing conclusions from facts, using logic. It extrapolates from the information observed (or evidence available) in order to arrive at conclusions about events that have not been observed.
I just watched your video clip. Good work! The voice narration, the pace the content is provided at, and the use of graphics and video all make it flow really well. I’m looking forward to the full version and hope you will post a link to it in this forum.
4 Likes
I did a pretty thorough evaluation of the BeC AAR, pointing out the many inaccuracies in it, namely the timeline and especially the timeline maps. The 18:06-18:12 timeline entry is a stumbling block, and if it’s not interpreted by all of the other evidence available will trip you up.
When using the AAR, with all of its inaccuracies, consider how Sen. Grassley’s website containing that document introduces it. It is “a flash summary,” and therefore should be analyzed and interpreted accordingly before relying on it for investigative purposes.
1 Like
Thanks! I’ll post it here when it’s done, and I might send you a draft before that if you wanted to have a look at that
1 Like
Yeah I know the AAR is not very reliable. It’s still difficult to guess what they really mean though
EDIT
I’ve apparently reached a limit for my first day here and have to wait 19 hours before I can post again. I’m not sure if you guys will see this but this is a reply to Daniel’s comment about authority below:
It’s not very clear. Reading the transcripts gives you some idea of what their roles were, but it doesn’t seem like there was a clear authority on the day. The site agent seemed to take orders from a detail supervisor or something. They told her to leave her post and call the site counterpart in the security room to ask about the 3 o’clock radio message that came in just before the shooting, which she doesn’t seem to have been able to do on her own.
So in the interest of accuracy and revision, I’ve started to go through your Recognition Tools R.14 to see if I could find anything that could used to be revised or further updated. Here are a few of my initial finds, and I’ll keep you posted of anything else that comes up.
3 Likes
Thank you! It’s always good to have a second pair of eyes, and with your eagle eyes compared to my Mr. Magoo eyes (I exaggerate a bit) it is especially helpful. 
3 Likes
I still don’t know who exactly had what powers.
Has anyone broken this down in detail anywhere?
Who was on site on July 13 and had authority over everyone present?
1 Like