The Human Behavior Podcast
Do you ever wonder why people act the way that they do? Join human behavior experts Brian Marren and Greg Williams as they discuss all things human behavior related. Their goal is to increase your Advanced Critical Thinking ability through a better understanding of HBPR&A (Human Behavior Pattern Recognition & Analysis.) What is HBPR&A? It's a scientific (and fun) way to understand and articulate human behavior cues so that you can predict likely outcomes and it works regardless of your race, religion, political ideology or culture!
The Human Behavior Podcast
Thomas Crooks: A Behavioral Profile
This week, we bring you an analysis of one of the most alarming events in recent history: the attempted assassination of Donald Trump by Thomas Crooks. We dive deep into the psychological profile of Crooks, examining how his actions challenge our preconceived notions of what drives someone to commit such violent acts. By comparing his behaviors and planning to those of school shooters, we uncover a chilling quest for notoriety and historical infamy. Our discussion also reveals the procedural and communication lapses that allowed this plan to unfold and highlights missed opportunities for intervention.
Join us as we dissect the critical elements of interagency communication and the human factors that can make or break critical operations. Our conversation sheds light on the complexities of coordination gaps and why maintaining seamless collaboration is paramount. We share real-life anecdotes from combat zones to illustrate how minor mistakes can escalate into significant consequences. By focusing on Crook’s behavior before and during the attack, we bring a nuanced understanding of his intentions, moving beyond speculative opinions to factual evidence.
In the final segments, we emphasize the importance of identifying genuine patterns in criminal behavior without succumbing to confirmation bias. By analyzing specific case studies and psychological motives, we stress the necessity of letting patterns emerge naturally to gain accurate insights. Our conversation covers everything from Crooks' choice in pornography to the type of bomb he used, aiming to piece together a comprehensive profile that can aid in preventing future threats. Tune in for a thought-provoking episode that challenges your understanding of criminal psychology, and the steps needed to ensure such events are not repeated.
Thank you so much for tuning in, we hope you enjoy the episode and please check out our Patreon channel where we have a lot more content, as well as subscriber only episodes of the show. If you enjoy the podcast, I would kindly ask that you leave us a review and more importantly, please share it with a friend. Thank you for your time and don’t forget that Training Changes Behavior!
Website: https://thehumanbehaviorpodcast.buzzsprout.com/share
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheHumanBehaviorPodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehumanbehaviorpodcast/
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ArcadiaCognerati
More about Greg and Brian: https://arcadiacognerati.com/arcadia-cognerati-leadership-team/
Hello everyone and welcome to the Human Behavior Podcast. This week we bring you an analysis of one of the most alarming events in recent history the attempted assassination of Donald Trump by Thomas Crooks. We dive deep into the psychological profile of Crooks, examining how his actions challenge our preconceived notions of what drives someone to commit such violent acts. By comparing his behaviors and planning to those of school shooters, we uncover a chilling quest for notoriety and historical infamy. Our discussion also reveals the procedural and communication lapses that allowed this plan to unfold and highlights missed opportunities for intervention. Join us as we dissect the critical elements of interagency, communication and the human factors that can make or break critical operations. Our conversation sheds light on the complexities of coordination gaps and why maintaining seamless collaboration is paramount. We share real-life anecdotes from combat zones to illustrate how minor mistakes can escalate into significant consequences. By focusing on Crook's behavior before and during the attack, we bring a nuanced understanding of his intentions, moving beyond speculative opinions to factual evidence. In the final segments, we emphasize the importance of identifying genuine patterns of criminal behavior without succumbing to confirmation bias, by analyzing specific case studies and psychological motives. We stress the necessity of letting patterns emerge naturally to gain accurate insights. Our conversation covers everything from Crooks' choice in pornography to the type of bomb used, aiming to piece together a comprehensive profile that can aid in preventing future threats. Tune in for a thought-provoking episode that challenges your understanding of criminal psychology and the steps needed to ensure such events are not repeated. Thank you so much for tuning in. We hope you enjoyed the episode, and please check out our Patreon channel. We have a lot more content as well as subscriber-only episodes of the show. If you enjoy the podcast, I'd kindly ask that you leave us a review and, more importantly, please share it with a friend. Thank you for your time and don't forget that training changes behavior. All right, hello everyone.
Speaker 1:This week we are talking about what we have been getting a lot of questions about and what a lot of people are talking about is this gentleman by the name of Thomas Crooks and the Trump assassination attempt in general. We're going to do that through kind of the set of lenses that we typically use for something like this and kind of approach it almost as like a kind of a kind of a case study based on what we know now. We're recording this on July 26th, so unless something comes out between the next few days of some evidence that we are unaware of. This is kind of what we're going on and you know, typically we wait until you know investigations and reports come out and everything gets compiled for us to compare to. But because of what we know and because of what people have testified to already and been reported and corroborated like, we're going to talk about some of the things that we know right now.
Speaker 1:And this is a great case study for a number of reasons. One, obviously, to talk about this shooter, thomas Crooks, because he fits in with every other shooter that we've ever discussed or that we talk about in class. It's also a great one to understand sort of security protocols, planning procedures, especially when it comes to communications, information sharing and information flow as it goes up and down, because this is a great one to look at of how things can can really go wrong even when you have all of the right information. I would say, even if you have enough actionable information to to intervene in a situation, how certain protocols and procedures are our own ones can get in the way. And then, of course, it's a great case study on just human perception, on how humans look at events, how we attribute value to certain things, what we decide is important, versus what actually is important, how people kind of can spin off the rails and go down these weird rabbit holes of stuff where you're just like where the hell did this information come from, or what are you talking about? Because what this shows is that one a very simple plan by a determined opponent can work. It shows again how a low level of sophistication, a high level of organization and access will allow you to pull off something like this and how, when we analyze stuff, I see a lot of experts and some people I know who are legitimate experts get a lot of things wrong because they're doing it from their perspective of what they know as how things work.
Speaker 1:Well, they've never carried out one of these attacks, so so it's. It's different, and you can't really unlearn how you see the world that way, and so it kind of gets in the way of how you interpret the events. I think that's just sort of a personal opinion. So there's a lot to get into, greg and we have a lot to go off of now. That's been corroborated enough for us to at least talk on a podcast about it. I think a lot to go off of now. That's been corroborated enough for us to at least talk on a podcast about it, I think. But I want to throw to you to kind of get started here this morning and just and we can jump into it from there.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so just briefly, and then I'll, if it's okay, I'll let you run your agenda. I mean I love it. I think we've talked about it enough. The two reasons I think we waited this long, where we wanted to hear from Cheadle and Watts, we wanted to hear from you know, get their testimony on record so then we can actually go back to something or lack of testimony.
Speaker 2:Well, and I wrote that down, brian, I wrote down. You can't impeach testimony you don't give. And the answers to questions were so, you know, watered down. It's like, well, I can't say that because it's under investigation. Well, you know, did the? The answers to questions were so watered down? It's like, oh, I can't say that because it's under investigation. Well, did the guy have a gun? Well, it's hard to say Shut the.
Speaker 2:So I think that if we focus on the low level of sophistication, you use the high level of organization and the access. If we focus on some of the things that the shooter did that should have been red flags that people were looking for, then we're going to get somewhere. Everybody knows the mistakes. I mean mistakes are glaringly obvious and it's so easy to arm to your quarterback and go back and point to the mistakes. What we should be doing is using this as a proper after action review to say, ok, how can we move forward from this and see those stress fractures that are likely going to stack up and help me stop an event like this before it occurs.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's exactly. It is that you know I, we can take what happened here and go all right, how do we, how do we not let this happen at the next event that we have? Or how do we, how do we take this and learn, like you said said, learn from it, but in the sense that, all right, I, I go into this assuming, um, this could happen to me, so I want to learn about it, so that it doesn't happen to me I could fall victim to all of these different uh things that occurred because it was a, it was, it was a number of uh things had to happen before, um, you know, he could take any shots or before he could carry out his attack, right.
Speaker 1:So it's like what are all these steps that that were in there? And so you know there's, there's getting all these reports in and looking at it, you know it was from, from what? What we're seeing so far and what, what? What people have corroborated is that there's, there is, you know, this guy was spotted, so Thomas Crooks won. Let's kind of start here that there's, there is, you know, this guy was spotted, so Thomas Crooks one.
Speaker 1:Let's kind of start here by talking about him, because you know we don't he's been. I think this is one of the first ones where, actually, because people are so confused by it or they're like shaking their head because he fits the profile of like a school shooter or something you know, they're like, well, wait, why would he do this? What's going on? This is the first one where everyone isn't saying you know, jumping to the, the sort of the motive behind it, because it's because he just looking at what he searched on his computer and where he looked it was like it's seemingly all over the place, just like all of these people are right, anyone who goes out and carries out one of these attacks, and so there's like no manifesto blaming something yet that they've released.
Speaker 1:I mean, maybe there is, you know, so we can't now attribute it to something you know. Well, no one's going to say well, you know, joe Biden said put a bullseye on Trump. You know that's what they started with, so that's why he did it. It's like, well, this one isn't as clear, and everyone wants to do that for different political reasons, or to get more time on the air, on the news, whatever it is, but you and I know that that's junk, and so can you explain why those things don't matter? We'll start there, I think.
Speaker 2:So let's talk about what does matter. Okay, so we take a look, obviously, at the history, not only his internet history. We look for leakage, we look at photos he may have stockpiled or had on his phone and unlocked his phone. Those are really good ways of working the caper backwards. For example, if we were looking for a target, we'd do the same thing to forecast where they would be and what they might be doing if we stopped it at a different point. But now what we're doing is we're conducting an autopsy protocol of the information. Does that?
Speaker 2:make sense we're going back and taking a look at it. So in this instance, I think it's obvious from the information that we have at this point, on this day, at this time, while we're recording, that Thomas Crooks was target agnostic until a target shows up less than an hour from his house. So what does that mean? That means that he registered to attend the rally. That's important to me. He searched both conventions and where they were and when they were going to occur, both Republican and Democratic. He didn't have an allegiance to either party and he had a number of photos of a number of high valence, high value targets that happened to be politicians. Ok, now those start co-enlisting together and become interesting to me.
Speaker 2:And then we have a kid that obviously wants to go down in history, but he doesn't want to be every other kid that goes down in history. So what's he choose, brian? He chooses a really, really short list the presidential assassins. The presidential assassin attempts yeah, okay, in case he lives. And so if we put now those together and I'll add just one more, and then I'll stop for a minute If we take a look at the fact that he goes to his bosses and says July 13th is going to be a very important date in my life.
Speaker 2:I need to take time off from the nursing home. Okay, look to an average person that's untrained, that doesn't look for patterns, that's seemingly just another drop in the ocean. But to what we do. If somebody would, even in passing or at the coffee shop we'd hear him discussing this. We'd say, okay, where's your laser pointer? We need to start taking a look at some other things and doing trash balls, because what it tends to show is here a kid that wants to make a name for himself somehow, and Brian, I hate to say. I was going to end and then add this but there was studies to see if this kid was bullied. He wasn't bullied. There was studies to see if he was an insult. He had a girlfriend. Okay, there was studies to say he was going to college in the fall and he had a job at a nursing home where he dealt with people all the time. So stop trying to jam that square peg into the round hole of some gosh damn checklist that you've created. That only you and five other people understand.
Speaker 1:You've created that only you and, and well you know, five of this. This is, this is a. That's a really good point, because I think that's where, uh, I think that's where a lot of confusion comes from, or a lot of misunderstanding, or that's where people kind of get scared. I would say right, because if you, you know, if the guy who is always acting crazy and angry and mad at everyone goes and does something like this, then people go yeah, man, he was man, he couldn't get along with anyone, he was volatile. Everyone knew he was a ticking time bomb. It sort of makes a little bit of sense.
Speaker 1:What you're talking about is Thomas Crooks could hold it together. This guy had a job, he had friends, high level of organization, and that's, I think, where people get a little confused or basically scared. So you're saying anyone that I run into or that I work with or that I've met and I've seen in the shopping at the grocery store, that checks me out, then the nice bagger kid could be one of these people and it's like, well, technically, yes, it's just statistically, it's almost never meet that person. So but, but you get what I'm saying. So so I want to start right there, cause you said you said crooks had a higher level organization and that's why he could do it, you know, and that's why we look at it that way. So so explain that, because I think that's where some of that really just the fear and the misunderstanding comes from. It's like, well, wait a minute, this is like the neighborhood kid down the street and that's where everyone goes. So there has to be something else. There has to be something else behind it.
Speaker 1:There's no evil, Right right. So can we jump into that just for another minute and go a little bit deeper on that?
Speaker 2:Of course. So one of the searches he did is for the Oxford shooters and specifically what happened to the parents. Okay, that speaks volumes to me. He has a sister that he loves, he has parents that he doesn't want to insult or embarrass. So what he's trying to do, he's trying to look for a plausible way out. What are the legal ramifications? What did they know? What can I do ex parte or outside the venue? So it's not obvious that they had anything to do.
Speaker 2:I know they're going to get searched. I'm speaking as this dead kid. I know the house is going to get searched. I'm not stupid, I can read that, but I'm going to leave everything in my van or my vehicle and the same thing with the bomb things. So I don't link anything to my parents. Okay, that to me is hugely important. One of the other things is he spent about as much time looking up on a major depression disorder as most of us would. I mean, I have a brain cloud. I know because I look up everything on WebMD, you know, and so it's not funny if he had major depression disorder.
Speaker 2:First of all, he was undiagnosed. Second of all, nobody came and said he was a depressed kid. Not one person came and said this was a deeply depressed kid. So why would you look that up? Look, when we were in St Louis, I had a UTI that was so bad that every time I pissed it looked like Diwali celebration, you know. So the idea is that I had to look that up. So if somebody looks back at my search history, no-transcript, so I'm going to carry it out. I guarantee a kid this organized had a threshold and if he met this threshold for pulling the pin and going home, okay, he would have gone home. And, brian, they never got close to that threshold. So he was like, look, he's on a roof doing the inch form with people filming him and saying there he is and he has a gun. He fully knew at that time. Do you know how much guts that took? And people are going hey, he's a criminal, yeah, I get it, but do you know that? At that point, brian, he said, okay, I've crossed this point of no return, and now I'm here, here and I'm going to continue this, and he even took the shots.
Speaker 2:That shows a very low level of sophistication, very high level of organization, and that's what we see in these kids over and over. A sloppy shooter is very different and they get wrapped up very quickly and they only have a couple of targets right. And why? Because they've got a higher level of sophistication, they're relying more on weapons or technology and maybe their organization level isn't that low. Look at the Rob Elementary shooter Okay, gets into a crash on the way because he's got the happy head and at the accident scene is shooting at people. Do you see the difference there? So stop trying to force. Take a look at what you have and, like Plinko, let it fall where it may and as they start stacking up, what do you do? You're getting a more clear picture, each piece of evidence that falls in.
Speaker 1:So what do you think? And now we're getting into the. We have to speculate with this question.
Speaker 2:Of course we have to Because he's dead and I can't.
Speaker 1:Yeah right, we, we can ask him. Uh well, I just want to kind of caveat that, because no one does and everyone just starts saying, you know, spouting off opinions, and people take that as what could have happened. But but you know, let's say you know he was confronted, you know, by police, you know, before he got on that roof, what do you think he, he likely have done?
Speaker 2:He's smart enough that he would have talked himself out of it and he would have gone home. He would have left his vehicle with all the evidence and he would have picked a future target, but too many of the things were in the plus column for him to do that. So he may have also been smart enough to say, hey, I'm just a kid, then gone back to his backpack and started the process over. But the contact is the important part. Look, kill, contact, capture, right. That's the stuff that we did when we built all our combat intervention programs so long ago. Why is contact so important? Because just by going up and deleting this person as a potential suspect, how long does that take? A minute, two, two minutes walking across the street. If he runs, that's telling, come on.
Speaker 1:And that's the yeah. I mean, that's the diffusion of responsibility that occurs when you have multiple agencies and different people talking to one another. And I reported this and that's what I did, and then someone else is supposed to go do that, but it didn't get down to them. Or maybe I'm in a position where I'm not supposed to leave, I'm only supposed to stand here and report things, and someone else is supposed to be the contact team. I mean there's all these different. This is how it plays out because those are so planned and organized.
Speaker 1:The problem with that is when the seams and gaps, when you're doing anything, interagency, anything with different teams, anything with people you haven't typically worked with, even if you're all you know, really, really good at what you do, it's those seams and gaps where there's always problems. So that's one the seam and gap in security that they had here with this place, the seam and gap in communication that they had with one another. I mean that's where things happen. You know they don't. That's where things happen. That's where the ones that aren't obvious, I should say, happen.
Speaker 2:So let's go right there Before we go too much further. So one of the things that we can look, I get paid for my opinion, so that means that I give you my professional opinion. When I'm just giving opinion-based testimony, where it's not my professional opinion, where I go, well, what I'm thinking, okay, that's different. That's completely different standards. So what I'm telling you right now is stuff that I've researched and stuff that I'm willing to go to bat and testify to. It's a very big difference.
Speaker 1:Well, and right now, unless some new thing comes out that we don't know.
Speaker 2:We're scientists, we change our opinion. Okay, that's, that's the way things go. So I will tell you to take a look at the evidence that we've got on the ground and what it tends to show. So we both know that. That.
Speaker 2:Uh, ray director, ray director cheetle went in and were very evasive on their, on their questioning and, and it's going to bug you, but let's go to the ladder. There's no question that our boy not only bought a ladder. Thomas Crooks brought it to the scene. You and I. Whether it was the ladder that he used to get up or the air conditioner, and whether the ladder that was in all the videos was his or not, does not matter. But you know who it matters to Ray and Cheadle. You know why? Because, brian, you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar, you get caught with your pants down. Here is a black eye waiting to happen and somebody goes up and goes hey, dude, the ladder was right there, it wasn't his ladder. I pick things that I can fight, that that nobody can prove or disprove, because I'm embarrassed, brian, I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 1:It's important to know for the purposes of the investigation, know the specific details, like you have to know that. But what we're saying is that it doesn't matter if it was his or it was there or whatever. A ladder was used and he had intent by buying one, so he intended to use that to get up on some. So, like we're just saying, for the takeaway, for the lesson, for the story, right, it's important and it doesn't matter that it was already there, meaning he took steps, he knew it was there, he had access, he demonstrated his intent by doing that and then now, whatever plays out, we know one was there, it was used, it was used by the teams that went up onto the roof, it was used in some manner by him. So it's they're, they're doing it for the purposes of, like you said, one. You have to have the detailed investigation, know exactly what happened and also to say, well, yeah, they didn't use ours, as if like, oh, okay, like, good, good job, what?
Speaker 2:the fuck does it matter? Right, but in thousands of investigations the person will go yes, I killed her with the barbell. Then I saw it off her head and I put the head in my gosh damn bowling bag and I took it out to my car. But I was not speeding when that stop, cop, cop stopped me.
Speaker 2:So you understand what I'm trying to say. So that's what that ladder has become chain of responsibilities. Now let's add a little bit to that right. When somebody says, hey, I contacted this, I did that, okay, the idea is that you're trying to diffuse the blame, you're trying to push that blame on other people, and you've gone with me to many locations and you've done investigations on your own. Have you ever seen an event where it was a carnival or a fair or whatever else, where there was agencies supporting others county sheriff, local police and everything else? Do they, after the first hour of vigilance, start forming school circles and potting up and having little conversations on their own.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, it's natural that happens with everyone. Yeah.
Speaker 2:So now you're in the middle of nowhere, pennsylvania, and you've got a couple of secret service agents and you got some ATF and you got some snipers. You don't think you're going to want to wander over and talk to those folks. You don't think that there's a semen gap that's caused just by this lack of operating together all the time. So now we take a look at that side. Now let's flip the coin for a minute. So we know that our boy, thomas Crooks, researched porn and we know he was a game player and specifically liked some shoot-em-up games. So what? Well, so that tells me a lot. Just like I want to go down in history, I want to control my narrative. I don't care where you come down on the side of pornography. I've got a daughter and I can tell you exactly where I come down on it. You get what I'm trying to say. So my idea is that's not something that we joke about or I would engage in jokes about.
Speaker 2:But why does he do it? He does it because he can control it. He can control the volume, he can control the content, he can pause and stop and change. Okay, why does he do a shooter game? That's the same thing. I have an identity, brian. I create a manifesto in the game, I create an autonomous region that I control. And guess what? If I get shot, I'm coming back and I'm coming back and I'm going to change the weapons. I'm going to keep trying until I get it right. These are things that the highly organized mind seeks out and these are things that give me a low sophistication feedback and they give me the access Pornography gives me the access to an ejaculation which releases chemicals in my brain. That's the same thing that that shooter game gives. And planning for this shooting of the president the former president president gave him that same high. It gave him that same high for months, if not a year, before this event occurred.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and video games are a great example and analogy to use, because that's why they're so. One of the reasons why they're so popular is because they play into our psychological and sociological needs. So in that case you're talking about like I can create a new avatar of myself, something I sort of kind of maybe aspire to be.
Speaker 1:Some people create it's like almost an exact copy of themselves, where you can can go and be like oh my god, dude, this character is you or it's a different version of you and it's all normal to do that and that's why those, like you know, alternative reality games, the role playing games, all that stuff are like so popular because it just plays into our psychology. It's like a natural extension of humans of how we think and allows us sort of this outside perspective and we can play. It's like a natural extension of humans of how we think and allows us sort of this outside perspective and we can play it's. It's almost like you are experienced in the world from from an outer self. You know what I mean Like outside of yourself, and so it's like it's very engaging that way. But but it's a great reason, it's a, it's another example of how it just in the same thing with pornography meeting psychological and sociological needs and biological needs at that point, yeah, and again, that's not endorsing it.
Speaker 2:We're not endorsing that, brian, but what we're saying is it occurs, and when we see it occur, I'll give you. Let me give you a couple of more points to touch on. He didn't steal the gun. He didn't buy the gun. He went in and borrowed his dad's gun and told his dad I'm taking the gun and going to the shooting range. He did go to the shooting range. He did go and buy ammo. None of those people this is not like Cho at Virginia Tech None of those people said, hey, I had a stone cold killer standing in front of me. Why? Because they had a kid. They had a kid that was a normal kid and that didn't stand out in any manner, but he wanted to. This is not your average. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Ne'er-do-well, I'm gonna get back at society. I was shit on my entire life. Uh, uh. One of the kids they interviewed uh, he never tried to make a conversation, he was an odd kid, he was bullied and you know what? They're not true. There was.
Speaker 1:Well, here's, here's, here's one thing, because there was a kid you know that they interviewed, and I mean a kid who's? I mean he's 20, whatever, same age as.
Speaker 1:Crooks or older or whatever, but young adult. And he was doing the Because I kind of want to get your take on this they were interviewing him. He was like, yeah, he got bullied a lot at school and people kind of picked on him. He was by himself and they were asking him what kind of things did they say to him or did they call him? Or, and they were asking like, what kind of things did they say to him or did they call him, or what names did they use?
Speaker 1:and he could provide zero details like he was like well, I don't really remember, but like I know they were mean to him and I know and I don't really remember what they called him or what they said, so either A I was getting the feeling like he was just talking or he was one of the people that did talk. Shit to this.
Speaker 2:Kid you growing up and didn't want to admit to it. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1:But it was. There was when you can't provide details. It's not like oh, everyone called him school shooter, you know what I mean. Like that stuff comes out.
Speaker 2:That's what's happening now. Every time there's a shooting we go and go. What went wrong? What you know injustice did this person fall into? But I will tell you that we have to take a look at some simple things Like do you know that he used a rifle and that he was on a roof and he portrayed a sniper? Actually, he looked up distance and other snipers. Why? Because psychologically he felt a need to remove himself. He's a lot like the guy that shot McKinley back in 1901, when you take a look at the background on him. But the McKinley shooter had recently lost a job and so he goes to the dark side and he comes out. It starts spreading out.
Speaker 2:But the idea is he wanted to do it in a public venue with a person that couldn't refuse going out and shaking hands and talking in public. So that's why he was researching this stuff. So why is it important that he had a drone, remote ISR? Why is it important that he had a bomb? Because a bomb is a remote thing. It doesn't have a face. I can emplace it and use it as a distraction or a device to kill people. What is that profile starting to build? That he didn't want to go like the McKinley shooter and walk right up to the president and shoot him twice. He wanted to maintain the distance. He didn't worry about getting caught. He didn't have an escape plan because he fully knew that this was going to be the time that he was going to do it.
Speaker 1:He was not walking out alive. He knew he was going to get killed Like that, was it that?
Speaker 2:likelihood was so high and that's part of his organization and that's why he kept his sophistication low enough that, no matter what plan look if the ladder gets compromised, I've got another way up because there's an air conditioner. If that roof is compromised, I have another way up because I have my vehicle roof or I have another location to scout it out. He was going to do this. He's a determined shooter and he's a determined shooter because he wants his place in history. He wants to say this was me at this time and he looked up people that were similar to him to show wow, man, wikipedia, history, look at this hero that I'm looking at. That's there and that fed part of his ego. He's got a fragile break in his ego somewhere. Whatever it was, it wasn't so psychological that he couldn't hold together a job, that he couldn't buy a box of ammo, that he couldn't drive. Nobody said wow, he was driving erratically and he parked in an odd location. None of that was part of it. So throw that shit out and stop trying to force it to fit.
Speaker 2:Sometimes shooter profiles are like fetch. Stop trying to make fetch work. Stop sitting there and saying that we're going to do some downfield blocking on this Look, if I got a drone and I got a gun and there's a former president in town and I say, hey, by the way, I'll be back in an hour, that's enough for me to say, out of all the people that we took a look at, brian he's the only one that fit that specific profile. So so, stop making this big thing, go smaller. Take the flashlight and go to a laser and take a look at what he said and what he did in the days and weeks before. And what would that tend to show?
Speaker 1:a reasonable person and even to the point, you know, um, which all these guys do, they, they research other attacks and other school shooters and everything, um, but you know the, the. I know the reports were that his, his parents, um, you know, he told his parents he was going to go to the range or whatever, and then, when his dad couldn't get a hold of him and he wasn't back yet, he was calling. And then when his parents heard about the shooting, when it occurred, apparently they called the, apparently they called the police.
Speaker 1:And they called the police and said I think my son is involved with this. Everyone think about that for a second. You turn on the news and you see this happen and your first thought is, oh shit, that might be my kid. It means you knew. It means you didn't not. Means you knew it means you you didn't not that you knew it happened, or he was planning that, or you knew he was going to do that. You knew that it was a possibility. You knew that you had someone who did not go along with normal. You know ways of doing things that had. Whatever issues he had, because we don't know, maybe he had some chemical imbalances entire life and whatever. I mean that that that that doesn't matter in a sense, but it's like his parents knew that my son could be one of these people, and so how many parents called that day?
Speaker 2:Brian, you're onto something right there, because do you think there was nine other parents that called and said hey, maybe that's my kid one, and where has that happened before? Where have we seen?
Speaker 1:that Exactly that was Ethan Crumbly at Oxford.
Speaker 2:Ethan Crumbly Come on, but hold on, because I think that's a very important point. Folks, write this down if you're listening to what we're saying. We're not anti-pattern, we're saying that patterns emerge, but we're saying read the pattern that emerges, don't force something to fit your pattern. And that's the problem. When we have a very rigid thing has to be, this has to be, this has to be this.
Speaker 1:It doesn't work that way. Okay, then let's explain that, because that's exactly what I've seen people I even know do. Where it's like you're going this is what I think happened. Then you're collecting evidence to support your claim, but that's basically the definition of confirmation bias. Of course it is right, and that's why we limit our statements. How am I supposed to do this then? So, if I'm listening to this and you're going, all right, well, don't force a pattern, let the pattern emerge. How do I let that pattern emerge, meaning okay, we've got all of these different data points, these different collections. We have this I'm looking up at the stars in the sky, and each one of these stars is one of these pieces of information that's come out. How do I make you know the any constellation out?
Speaker 2:of that um and have it be correct, versus just creating one out of my own mind and the need to see a human face and everything.
Speaker 2:So we don't have the hours it would take to unpack what Brian just said, because it's spot on and he's talking about a galaxy and a universe. I would say let's just talk about our solar system, okay. So we call Mars the red planet and we call Jupiter, you know, the ring planet, and and Jupiter is also a giant, okay. So when we start coming up with those terms for it, it's because something that we've seen all along start coming up with those terms for it, because something that we've seen all along, and those are very descriptive terms okay, the earth is the big blue marble. Okay. So I would say, instead of looking at all of it, because our ancient ancestors looked at that same galaxy that Brian was talking about, laying on the lawn at night and looking up, and they said, hey, that's Sagittarius, or that looks like a crab, or you know, this looks like whatever. And depending on where you were on the face of the planet, you came up with those descriptors. I'm saying make it even smaller, make it just a nine. You know eight now because Pluto got the shaft.
Speaker 2:But if we take a look at those things that mattered to Thomas Crooks, brian, if I come up to you and say, hey, let me borrow any gun. Okay, it wasn't, it was a long-range rifle. Now do you think he gave a shit that it was a black AR-15 with a magazine? No, it just happened to be what was available. You know what he didn't choose? He didn't choose a pistol because that didn't plan into his reckoning at all. I'm not going to shoot a cop before the thing. Even if they come up and contact me, take the picture. I'm not going to act out violently. This is what I'm going to do, this is my plan and I need a long range rifle to do it. So if he would have found a flintlock that he was familiar with, that could shoot 160 yards and that was the only rifle he was going to use that rifle.
Speaker 2:So again, we're talking about an agnostic thing. I'm target agnostic here. The president is going to be here. That's where I'm going to go. I'm roof agnostic. Well, this one's outside of the perimeter. It's an easy thing. So that's a low level of sophistication that I can access when I talk to my parents.
Speaker 2:For my parents to call, there would have to have been some leakage. He had to make a comment or make a statement. Hey, if you don't see me later I'm off to shoot the president. Those type of things occurred somewhere. And, brian, that's just not how clinically normal things function. Like Shelly would pop hot because Shelly's angry all the time and Shelly's a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and has been her entire life. As a matter of fact, we've got stuff in the House that when her parents Democrats come over, shelly has to take and put in a drawer, but in the house that when her parents Democrats come over, shelly has to take and put in a drawer. So but the one thing you know is Shelly's never going to attempt an assassination on anybody Shelly wants her safe and that's all.
Speaker 2:She wants her safe, but she doesn't ever meet her way. I would tell you that if we take a look at Thomas Crook's friends because he had them and his girlfriend I bet he was a loving, kind, wonderful person. I bet his engineering degree made sure that there was a degree of specificity in everything he did. He didn't just make that bomb, he made a missile that went up and blew out a little parachute and came down. He showed other people, hey, if I take 10 sparklers, look at the things I can do. Brian, I'll guarantee you, if we dig deep enough those directions, we'll find stuff.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I'm waiting to see what when some of the details come out about some of the devices that he built, because it's very they're being very specific with the language that they use to describe it. They said they were viable and not armed, or something like or not on receive. They didn't, the receiver had not been turned on or something. It was very specific Like no. They basically said what I took from it was these were they would have worked and it was not on or it was not armed, or something like that. They acknowledge the fact that he built a successful bomb that would have worked and that's all. As those details come out, it'll be.
Speaker 2:What did he do with those, though, brian? It'll be interesting to see.
Speaker 1:We don't necessarily know why, like maybe he did, was just you know he forgot to to to you know what I mean to to arm it or something like that and then went oh shit, I still have my plan.
Speaker 1:You know, yeah, he did have a few things on his mind that day, but you know you, you actually you brought something up I want to hit on, and what you're talking about, too, is why it's important the lexicon, the language we use to talk about some of this stuff. So we have a vernacular, a lexicon that we teach in our course, that we talk about, we use it even here on the podcast, right, and it's for a specific reason. Like, we use terms like organization, sophistication and access, we use things like seams and gaps, even our term like file folders, you know, I mean, when we talk about experiences, the Rolodex.
Speaker 1:The Rolodex, because one that's a visual way I can understand. Well, because when someone gets in the well, everyone uses the term. You know it's schema, right, of how mentally we work and process information and access and so. But but if I ask you, well, like I can't, I don't know what a schema looks like. And you're like, oh, like a schematic. I'm like fuck, I've never seen one of those. It's like, okay, do you know what a file folder is like, let's say on your computer? When you click on that, you open it up, what else could be in there? Well, there could be other folders in there or just files, and then they'll lead you to another thing. Okay, I can visualize that, the Rolodex, the file cabinet that I open, amongst other entire room full of it. So it's a visual way for us to kind of get a point across or to understand a concept.
Speaker 1:But when we get into this and this is part of the reason when people say like lone wolf, like lone wolf or something like along those terms, or was inspired by, or did it because he heard this we're attributing values to things and it really gets in the way of how we look at people. And I think a lot of the times because people go well, why do you guys use all these terms? Or you use this, or you're just trying to sound smart. It's like no, no, no, I'm trying to not get you to misattribute some information to something where it shouldn't. I mean, you even brought it up to now with the, the online diagnosis, like that's we're. We're so far past the web. Md, greg, like everyone on social media, like everyone says that they have, like ADD or ADHD, or now autism is a big one, everyone's calling themselves slightly autistic.
Speaker 1:Then there's all these other ones that people do the terms like narcissist and gaslighting. And what's the other one, dunning Kruger, like PSYOP. You see all these terms that are like hey, that thing has actual meaning and you're using it incorrectly. Even with him, it's like OK, were you diagnosed with this meaning? And you're using it incorrectly. Even with him, it's like okay, were you diagnosed with this? Like I can? You know? I mean if I say I have something, because multiple doctors have been like brian, you have this problem. It's very easy to see you know.
Speaker 2:But you know exactly and you've got medical, yeah, exactly yeah, so.
Speaker 1:But the thing is it really clouds how we look at these different issues. And so the same thing, when people talk about, well, there was a threat from Iran, did they have something to do with this? It's like, okay, one. When is there not a threat from one of our foreign adversaries? Is there ever a time when they go, hey, the intel community goes, hey, guys, this month no threats, they're standing down this month.
Speaker 1:It's like no, there's things that are always present, that are always there, but what I was bringing up the language in the lexicon was how you're talking about crooks and some of the things that he did and said. You're doing it in a specific manner and to get to the point of that is why, then, is it important to look at it this way and not about his motive to do it? Because this is a big thing that we talk about, how we always say motive doesn't really matter, because it doesn't in a sense. But if I'm investigating it, yeah, I want to look at his searches because I want to know. I want to know, like, where his head was at and that's what he was thinking, what, what Crooks was thinking.
Speaker 2:But.
Speaker 1:But but the that came right out, that was that came out really fast too, Um, but, but uh, no that, but no, it's still fascinating to me that we want to create, we have to create a story, and we have to create a story to justify it in our heads, and we have to have one that makes sense.
Speaker 2:But we're so all over the place because yeah.
Speaker 1:Right, right. And I think that this is also what it makes more complicated, because then someone's going to push back and say, well, no, he had these bombs built, which meant he maybe wanted to do this, or he had this built, or he said this, or he searched this specific term. That means that that you know, that means that he wanted to do this for a political reason, and it's like no, you're saying that, that's not what Crooks was saying.
Speaker 2:So how do I get better? It's your narrative. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1:You're right, right, but then because everyone says you got to take someone else's perspective and you got to look at it through their eyes, so it's like, well, how am I supposed to do that? How did you just say this? Yeah, this one thing is like how do I get into Crooks' head to know what he was thinking? Because it's likely very different than the way I think in a lot of ways but in terms of the decisions he's going to make. But there's a lot of overlap between, maybe, the way he thinks and the way every other human thinks and sees the world. So I think that's too where it gets a little bit. You know, the turbidity starts to form there because there's some overlap between crooks and maybe me reading this story, but what we would actually do are very different things. So can you kind of explain that a little bit?
Speaker 2:Yeah, the likelihood scale. The likelihood scale I talk about things that are more likely and more unlikely, so the more likely they are, this is the most likely course of action and then in there I look for the most dangerous course of action. So I'll give you an example how to look at the smallest piece of evidence and how you can extrapolate certain theories from that and then prove them by going out and searching for evidence. We know that he searched for pornography, so is it likely that it was horrible, vicious, snuff porn? That's the first question. Part two of that question is how do we know? It's likely not kid porn, because the way information goes, brian, those would have been released. In the first 15 minutes of the profile on Thomas Crooks, he looked at dangerous beating porn, this and that. So why is the porn important? What kind was it? Was it loving, was it healthy? Was it domination and this, and that those help give us a window into how he liked to get off, and that's important. Those talismans, those markers, those things that he has that are around him. It's not to say he was a good or a bad guy. Clearly he wasn't the best guy on the block because he tried to shoot the former president, right, but the idea is that if I really yeah, it killed somebody and then injured two other people, let's not forget all the millions and billions of dollars that are going to be spent. Looking at Thomas Crooks, that profile of the porn is hugely important to a guy like me.
Speaker 2:Now, what about the bomb? Was the bomb mobile? Was it easy to carry? Was it too big? Was it a vehicle-borne IED? Was it to place on the road so if he was escaping, it would cover his escape? Was it a distraction? Did it not work? Or did he decide because of some other reason?
Speaker 2:Those are the things we dig deep in. Okay, we don't sit there because motive takes us. Well, he clearly hated Trump, while he had photos and researched President Biden as well. Ok, well, he hated the Republicans. Well, he kind of made donations to an independent and then did these other things. See, brian, every time we go to motive, motive will turn up just opinions, and those opinions can't be bolstered and they can't be built and they can't be defined.
Speaker 2:So I always use the scientific method and say here's the information that we got, what makes most sense and that's going to help me out. And so all the stuff about the bomb, are going to give us a clear picture of Thomas Crook's letters or writings. Did he leave something that we don't know about yet? And how would we know with Watts and Cheadle? Do you get what I'm trying to say? We don't know about yet? And how would we know with Watts and Cheadle? Do you get what I'm trying to say? We don't know all the cards around the table yet, do we? And most of the people that knew? Holy shit, it happened. This is the worst thing that could have happened on my watch. Most of those people are now fired or searching for a hole or trying to build up an excuse around them, rather than trying to say how do we prevent this from occurring again?
Speaker 1:And I think part of what gets in that way is because there's a lot of study of sort of like victimology. You know, is that that sort of it? Can you know? I look back at you know people can say, remember Bianchi and Bono? Right, they killed a lot of prostitutes. And people like, okay, well, was it, you know, because their mother was a prostitute. And they have this psychological no, they had access. It was really easy to get victims, very, very easy to get the victim. And then, once they learned it, oh hey, shit, this works, let's keep doing it and we'll get better at it. And if you think about that very simply, that's how these things occur. That's how criminals operate, because that's how humans operate. If I find a way to get, it's very easy for me to get a customer for us. Greg and I went, wow, I only took these few steps and they immediately hired us. What do you think I'm going to do on everyone after that? I'm going to go.
Speaker 2:I'm going to go wait, I just want to do that.
Speaker 1:Exactly, I want to do that all the time and so, so that we get wrapped around like who the target was, when it often matters less than what people think, and and we go, yeah, but it's gotta be, because it's a a polarizing figure. Or, you know, if it was done to Biden, they would have said, you know, oh, it's because he was inspired by something Trump said. And then people were trying to do that at the beginning of this one too. It's like, well, he was inspired by something Biden said. No, no, that does not cause you to. You know, carry out this attack. It's a number of other issues that you have, but you know, carry out this attack.
Speaker 2:It's just a number of other issues that you have. But wait a minute, if it did? If it did, where would we see that? I would have tattoos, I would paint the inside of my room, I would be gluing up articles on the wall and stuff. This is not that kid. Now you want to talk about Adam Lanza. Did Adam Lanza have some troubles? Did he leak in a whole bunch of different you know manners? That's not this kid. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to reverse engineer this kid to meet a profile. So I can say so. There, I warned you, I told you we got to stop doing that. What we got to do is we got to play the hand that we're dealt now and take a look at these factors that are influencing a potential decision. Then we draw a reasonable conclusion that this kid is more dangerous than that kid in this environment. It's that simple.
Speaker 1:And so this is a great explanation of what you mean by the likelihood scale. So everyone wants some sort of computational analysis, some data points, some percentage saying, all right, this person is 80% likely, or something to carry this out, or this is an actuarial table.
Speaker 2:when it's going to happen? Ooh, it's going to exactly we want to.
Speaker 1:We want a percentage of what, what's the likelihood of this occurring in this situation? And that's not how we use likelihood, because you can't, in these different situations, there's no you. You can't use, you know, bayes theorem, statistical analysis to draw the conclusion with, with a number, you can do exactly what you just said right there and this is it's, it's, you're, you're, you're at the event, there's a crowd of people who's more likely to does not have more likely that?
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's who's more likely in this moment in time, so that I can make a decision about what to do, and then maybe that changes. Maybe I go up to Crooks and he's just like he's got some mental health issues. He's lost from his parents. Okay, good, now. It's not him. Now I can get him help. Now, who's the most likely? Not him, now I can get him help. Now, who's the most likely?
Speaker 1:And that's the idea behind everything for just decision-making in general, because you have to make a decision now, I have to put all of this information together and get it in a usable, chunkable format that I can operationalize, and that's using likelihood, is the most logical way to do it, because it's based on artifacts and evidence. And it's based on artifacts and evidence and it's based on what you know in that given time, there could have been someone else in a parking lot that was giving off some cues that had nothing to do with this, where, at that moment in time, for that person, that area, you go okay, well, in my area that I have to cover right now, this person's the most likely.
Speaker 2:I should maybe go contact them you get what I'm saying, and now that was just a dope deal going on, or that was a whatever you know.
Speaker 1:it doesn't matter what it is.
Speaker 2:No, no, let's take a look at that. Would you say that it's likely that if police would have you know that my glasses look wonky today, sorry, would you agree that if somebody took a peek into Crook's vehicle, it would have been interesting enough for them to go holy crap and want to look more? Yes, what about his backpack? Yes, what about the fact that he was walking around with a drone at least twice in the hours before conducting what's clearly ISRD event? What could have been another reasonable explication? He's a high school or a college journalist and he's taking photos. He's working for the FBI. None of those fit. Was it more than one agency and more than one type of agent that he popped hot for? Yeah, the first copper that he popped out is why was he avoiding getting checked in? Okay. Then the second one was well, why is he doing these other things? And then somebody goes hey, I just had this interesting kid. Look, I got a photo of him. And other people go that's a kid I saw. Okay.
Speaker 2:So how many others in this crowd of 10,000 of people, brian popped hot? Nobody. So, first of all, our message is getting through because they're using a gating mechanism and saying this person is interesting and then it training fell short. Because when something's interesting, you have to investigate. How many interesting things you have to investigate at your scene, every one, every one of them. Because that baseline anomaly is where the danger hides. And if you wanted to look at some of the things that were going on and you wanted to say these are incongruent signals, brian, did incongruent signals stick out in your mind in the moments after the shooting when you saw the videos? Yeah, they did, and that's where you go and that's where you start, not the motive, you know, because motive is so nebulous it could be anything.
Speaker 1:And because of the context of the situation. This, let's say, besides, obviously, before the rifle and just him walking around him and the drone, if it had been the county fair, would that have been still interesting, but less interesting? Well, of course, because it's a different event and it's a different context. It's like, and what's crazy to me and why everyone saw it is in this context there's only, it's binary. At that point, it's either A this kid has some issue, he's lost or whatever's going on or B like no, this is it. This is the time that I need to go intervene. And this isn't bashing on the people that are there, because obviously they were trying to do something, yes, and they did a good thing.
Speaker 2:They were saying, hey, there's a shit around the room, right.
Speaker 1:Well, I mean, it's just like the you know I'm talking about even before that you know. And this is when it gets into that, that sort of this diffusion of responsibility and how communication works and how ineffective it can be in the times that you really need it, and it's like what a lot of us, a lot of people, have a hard time understanding, is like. So you're telling me it was a bunch of, you know, simple human errors, that that allowed for the situation to occur. And my answer is yes, it really is, of steps that weren't, or boxes that weren't checked, steps that were not taken in what that should have been and for for all kinds of different contributing factors to that.
Speaker 1:And if some of them wouldn't have been there, if it had just been, you know, one agency controlled the whole thing, would it? Could it have gone differently? Yeah, maybe it, maybe it was, but that's not the answer, right. The solution to it isn't just okay, well, now we do it this way and it's just one team, they control everything. It's like, well, no, hang on no-transcript.
Speaker 2:With all your deployments and all the time you were in a combat zone, did you ever see anybody fall asleep? Because they were tired, even though it was a dangerous environment? Absolutely.
Speaker 2:Did you ever see somebody get so hot that they took their eye off the glass because they had to go throw a piss or take a drink or get into some shade, because if they didn't they were afraid they were going to die? Those are human behavior factors and the limits of human performance. Those situations, thank God, in that specific instance didn't lead to that person or somebody very close to them getting killed, but in other instances, 50 feet away or 50 miles away or 5,000 miles away, it did cause that. Now here you add a number of things, the perfect storm of little things that come together that make a situation more dangerous. And when we go to these meetings this is what I'm trying to say we go to these meetings, nobody plans on that.
Speaker 2:When we were at Plius for that ultra-secret thing I don't go any attribution and they were showing us how this thing deployed. The idea was I raised the question hey, what's the turning radius on that? And they go, why does that matter? And I raised the question hey, what's the turning radius on that? And they go, why does that matter? And I was like, well, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan and Yemen and guess what, those streets that you go down are really tight and you can't turn this thing around. How are you going to escape? How far can it run with the oil pan shot?
Speaker 2:Do you remember the strikers? Do you remember driving around in those son of a bitches with the metal things to hold your duffel bags on the outside right? And you remember having to take those off because the screens and the things were utilized to stop an RPG but you couldn't go down the streets with them? So there are things that we do, brian. We took off our gosham boots and put on our running shoes, or you know, today we didn't wear our eye pro, or we looked left and we didn't. Those are all things that fall on the likelihood scale and the Arcadia scale that nobody else considers. How much water did you have? Where did the guy throw a piss? Did he piss before that? Did he encounter anybody in those 10,000 people? We're talking back about the shooter. Did he said something? Did he post something there at the last minute? Did he really intend to kill the cop? Did he fire any shots at the cop? Those things flex on the likelihood and they paint a picture and that's the best picture that we have to start breaking down.
Speaker 1:And you know I go back to for a lot of the big takeaways is what I kind of started with. Is that really it's those seams and gaps are the most important places that we don't think about or don't look at, and this is why we do. It goes back to our parking lot analogy Look the periphery, the seams and the gaps, like who hangs out there? Okay, it's not typical. It doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong or suspicious, but there's a reason you chose to do something that wasn't typical. Now maybe you pride yourself on this is how I get my exercise, or I don't want to go and get my door dinged and my car hit and whatever, and I'm not lazy. Fine, that's intent. You have intent behind your actions outside of just going shopping here and and that's different. So he had intent that was different than everyone else at the event.
Speaker 1:now, whether you want different that people promise that on but but and meaning like, whether you're, you're, you were, you were pro or anti-trump you have an intent when you go there. Your intent is to see the speech and, to you know, either be a part of it or or protest it or whatever. Like there's, there's a, or you're there as part of a security element, or either you're working and you're setting up the stands like everyone has a freaking reason to be there, and so you have to fall into one of those things.
Speaker 1:There is no random showing up and just I'll walk around and see what's going on. No, that doesn't. That's not how people behave ever. We have so much less free will than we think we do, and so that I think that's the biggest reason why people don't understand some of the stuff that we talk about. It's like, well, no, I made this decision. It's like, no, you didn't, you were going along with the crowd and that's how humans operate Exactly.
Speaker 2:Look, brian, do you remember the video of the stage right after the shooting? They're trying to hustle the former president off and get him to that vehicle and there's a scrum that's going on and the bearded vet with the hat of his service stands up with a beer in one hand and his middle finger up in the other hand and he's screaming obscenities. Okay, everybody else that's uninitiated, that doesn't do human behavior pattern recognition analysis would have said keep an eye on that guy. Was that guy any threat to anybody but himself? That's a hard nerp right there.
Speaker 1:Okay, that's the woman with the cell phone. Who everyone?
Speaker 2:picked up. Why did she do this? It's like, oh my God, dude.
Speaker 1:Because every time something happens, she picks up her phone and starts recording it. So guess what she does in this event, she falls back on what she knows. This is where the insane shit starts to get off the rails. But we covered a lot, yeah, and hopefully we brought up some points of interest for folks. I would love for people to reach out to us, of course, for our Patreon subscribers. Patreon subscribers you can just hit us up on there. We can go into detail, but we also have thehumanbehaviorpodcasts at gmailcom, if you do want to send us something. Actually too, I should mention I keep forgetting to mention this at the beginning Depending on what podcast player you have, I should mention I keep forgetting to mention this at the beginning depending on what podcast player you have it should say right on there in the description send us a message and you can click on it. It basically sends a one-way text to our podcast account, so I can't respond to that text, but I can bring it up and talk about it. So it's a good feedback loop.
Speaker 2:If you have something or a point, you can throw it in there loop, like if you have something or a point, you can throw it in there. But I think it's important that everybody knows that everybody that reaches out to arcadia gets a personal, personal answer from brian. If you're reaching out to me, you're getting that. We address everything. Uh, we're not going to address uh, ridiculous shit, but the stuff that's realistic, heck yeah paid, paid customers first, obviously.
Speaker 1:So if you're one of our Patreon subscribers, we're going to get right on that.
Speaker 2:If not, it might take some time.
Speaker 1:No, no, no. So we do. We appreciate everyone tuning in and we appreciate your time. You know if you enjoyed it. You know we ask always to leave a review, but even more importantly, you know, share it with a friend, tell us what you liked about it, tell us what you're confused about, so we can really get into the details of this stuff and get it out there. But we do appreciate everyone listening and thank you so much for tuning in and don't forget that training changes behavior.
