He is the EMS Technology Specialist, not dispatch, and not IT who did maintenance on all the equipment. He knew how to make sure everything was setup correctly, and could probably troubleshoot problems if they occurred. A good person to help out with monitoring communications in the trailer. I didn’t see BuC ESU in his LinkedIn account. I believe it was Crawford who described the people in the trailer, and that was his description. He may be the Technology Specialist for the BuC ESU team, but I highly doubt he has tactical training.
As for the radios in the Command Center, they just had one PSP radio, which according to May was for monitoring the motorcade. Unfortunately, it did not work for that because it was only able to transmit and receive in close range. It sounds like the motorcade PSP were on a separate PSP channel, and the radio in the Command trailer was not scanning frequencies.
As for the EMSVO license, I guess that it’s not required for the armor. I could be wrong. I just don’t see those as being driven like you see ambulances and fire trucks being driven.
Ok, thanks for trying. I am almost certain his name begins with a “J” and ends with a “Z”. The rest of his name is blurred. That is the best i can do with it.
I got to reading more of the ASAIC - DTD guy’s transcript. I think his name really is Nick Menster, because it sounds like he was Myosoty “can’t set up the venue” Perez’s supervisor, and a LOT of Secret Service agents are pissed that he is now in charge of Eric and Lara Trump’s detail, despite him not fixing a lot of errors she made at Butler - notably leaving the AGR buildings unguarded. See Susan Crabtree’s X post of Jan 31
First - he highly praises Sean Curran:
Pages 18-19
A: Yes. He (SAIC Curran) and the DSAIC have taken it upon themselves on at least a few occasions to rent – to get space within the there to have us practice shift movements. He’s brought in – I believe it was instructors from the Rowley Training Center to give us kind of a refresher on some of the basics of shift movements and how to – when I say or stage, I mean go on to a stage to make a body bunker or remove a protectee from the stage – and some basic medical refresher things. They took that upon themselves to do and give our detail the benefit of that training. I recall that on at least two occasions.
They had the DTD operations section make a PowerPoint for our agents that were going to go out and work site advance work, just, you know, some of the good principles to follow while working a site, some things you can reference to help you be successful when you’re there. So those types of things the SAIC helped us with.
Can anyone help tease this out, who selected Perez as site agent, and who might have pressured that person to pick an idiot? A whistleblower to a senator (I don’t remember if it was Grassley, Hawley or Johnson) said she was known to be subpar and they weren’t happy about her being the site agent beforehand.
Page 47-48
Q Okay. Just in advance of planning for this event – first of all, help me understand – I think you mentioned – talk me through how Special Agent [redacted - Perez] was chosen as a site agent.
A So the – the list of operations, [two words redacted] liaisons put the shift leaders of every shift, like I said earlier, [redacted] has [redacted] and the family section also has a shift leader and supporting agents below them. But the shift leaders make the schedules in conjunction with [redacted redacted] in operations. And Agent [redacted] will put out a – an email early in the week that says, you know, for next week’s planning, these are the following known trips that we have so far.
And then he’ll just assign, you know, [redacted - one letter or number] is responsible for this one, [redacted - maybe four letters], et cetera, family section. And to my knowledge, family section was up in the rotation for volunteering or nominating an agent to fulfill that mission. And that’s how she was selected.
Q Got it. And you said you didn’t supervise her directly. Is that right?
A That’s right.
Q How much interaction did you have with her before July 13th and the whole event leading up to it?
A Very little.
Q All right. So did you have any impressions of her on maturity, preparedness, training, anything like that before that week?
A She was always pleasant. That’s all I recall.
Our ASAIC apparently knew something about why counter snipers were assigned to the Butler rally:
Page 27
Q – did you have an understanding as to why, for that event (July 13), the counter sniper unit was provided?
A: Yes.
…
Page 28
A: I had a good indication why.
Q: And who told you why?
A: [Three lines redacted].
Later conversation indicates those lines include discussion of line of sight issues.
Page 32
Q Got it. Okay. So the chronology sounds like basically in your recollection is that you heard about a general [redacted - possibly threat?]
A Uh-huh
Q Then you worked with – by trying to help Special Agent [redacted-Perez]was going to be the lead on that event, to make the request for a counter sniper unit?
A That was my purpose.
Page 55
Q Okay. In a discussion with Special Agent [redacted - probably Perez] did you tell her to be vigilant about lines of sight and mitigation?
A I believe I did.
Q And did she seem to understand what you were expecting of her in that regard?
A I think so.
I started skimming a little after this point, but the ASAIC talks about his walkthrough with the site leader Perez and mentions what a mess she made of the planning , and how he asked if there would be police between the stage and the AGR building. He mentioned the combine being placed (almost implying that was enough). Of course he never followed up on most of the line of sight failings.
I might have missed a post or two, but the last I saw, we weren’t really sure if the ASAIC was Menster or not, because Ms. Crabtree initially identified him as Menster, and then reversed that.
You have to ask yourself which of her anonymous sources was correct, the first or the second. Since you can’t be certain that any anonymous source is correct, you need to have corroborating evidence. I always like to have at least two pieces of corroborating evidence for identifications, preferably three. I keep that evidence for each person I ID on a hidden slide in my Recognition Tools slide deck. (That slide deck is actually 185 slides because of it.) When they have an interview transcript, I ensure the name, titles, etc. fit the redactions using identical overlay font/text.
(Let me tell you an example. We have an engineer and he claims he has IQ130+. Maybe he was 40 years ago. But in the '70s I saw middle school education on television. Many adults had only 4 elementary classes at that time and our govrnment established evening schools for adults and also broadcasted on state television. (Especially, I saw the explanation of the average speed of the train on TV at that time.) It is a tremendous shift in IQ100 when a significant amount of adult population is at level of 10 year old kids. So it was easy to be IQ130.)
I’m pretty sure kids had to go to school until age 16 everywhere in the US pretty much since about 1950 or so.
As an aside, until 1994 or 1995, you used to be able to take one’s SAT score and multiply by 10 and get a rough approximation of one’s IQ. After they redid the test, the high scores are a lot easier to get.
I started to study the muzzle sound and already explained the Euler-Lagrange equation of the air - as a whole system. But it is not the entire story. There are (at least) two other possibilities. We might describe it as the motion of individual molecules or as a field. (Of coures the air is not a contiouos “fundamental” field like electromagnetism.)