Edit: I forgot to add the link. Maybe this is the first bodycam footage.
(Already there were 3 people on that roof.)
Well clearly here, you cannot see the rangefinder because, duh it’s in his pocket. We don’t take photographs of the insides of pockets, nor bottles, nor backpacks, nor random white vans carefully extracted. We only photograph what we need. 
2 Likes
some days ago, @VegasPatriot also assumed the rangefinder was in his trouser pocket…
it could have been anything in his pocket, e.g., pack of cigarettes, gum, notebook, etc…
everybody seems to BELIEVE it is the outline of a rangefinder, but nobody seems to have evidence of this belief whatsoever…
the only location that makes sense to have used a rangefinder is on the roof before firing the first round…
would it make sense to anyone if a shooter puts that rangefinder back in his trouser pocket while lying on a roof, right before firing a couple of rounds?
are there any roof pictures of his right trouser pocket?
2 Likes
it is obscured by Biden’s letter which was wrapped around the range finder. 
2 Likes
yes, given occam’s razor, that is the most obvious and simple and thus most plausible explanation 
1 Like
But it is too big to just say ‘sorry I forgot in my pocket’.
1 Like
i don’t know how familiar you are with my work. but I rarely make assumptions or speculations. I’m primarily interested in analyzing the evidence available, and whenever possible seek a second or third form of corroborating evidence.
So, for those on this forum who might fall for your critique of my inference that the bulge in his pocket is most likely a rangefinder, based on available evidence, below are three forms of evidence that attest to Crooks having a rangefinder. I challenge you to do the same. Provide at least 3 different forms of evidence that describes Crooks being in possession of a different object, one that has a similar shape as the bulge in his pocket. I’ll wait.
1. The Beaver County After Action report.
2. Witness testimony.
As reported by ABC:
“Nicol noticed an unattended bike and backpack. And he saw the man looking up and around, then pulling a rangefinder from his pocket. There was no apparent reason to have a distance-gauging device at a political rally featuring the man who, in a few days, would accept his party’s presidential nomination.”
Source: Local SWAT team blames Trump assassination attempt on lack of planning, communication - ABC News
As reported by CNN:
“The officer, Greg Nicol, zoomed in with his binoculars and saw that the skinny young man with long hair and glasses was holding a rangefinder, a device used by shooters to calculate the distance to a target. He had it pointed directly at the stage where Trump was about to speak.”
3. Radio communications stating that a rangefinder was found with Crooks.
As reported by The Washington Post:
“’Just an FYI, we had a younger white male, long hair, lurking around the AGR building,’ a local countersniper said at 5:42 p.m., according to a time-stamped transcript of encrypted radio communications obtained by The Washington Post. ‘He was viewed with a range finder sighting the stage. … We lost sight of him.’”
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/03/trump-rally-police-radio-transmissions/
As reported by TribLive:
"Amid the din of a helicopter and chatter on the police radio, officers described finding a remote control on Crooks, no more than 6 inches long and powered by a 9-volt battery.
“They’re wanting pictures of it for the bomb squad,” someone said.
An officer described it as looking very similar to a garage door opener, with an extendable antenna and the numbers 1 through 12 on it.
Investigators reported finding home-made explosive devices in Crooks’ vehicle and another in his Bethel Park home.
“He has a range finder and cell phone, as well,” one officer said.
“If that phone starts ringing …” one officer instructed, “call me in case he’s got someone working with him.”
Source: 'A failure on multiple levels': Records reveal security lapses at Trump rally
2 Likes
Yeah, it seems like the reports are strong. But the device didn’t get photographed on the roof, did it?
3 Likes
No photographs have been released anyways, but if you read the last source, an officer stated over the radio that it was found with him on the roof. Specifically where he doesn’t say.
2 Likes
At the bottom line, no photo of evidence. That’s bad.
Three times they missed to take a picture. First at magnetometers, second when Greg saw him, third at the final scene.
3 Likes
Crooks may have stashed it in his backpack or something. Note we also didn’t see his car keys.
3 Likes
If you discount first-hand radio communications from an officer on the roof stating he had a range finder, I wonder how you would accept a photo of said range finder, which was most likely taken at the scene as well as in the FBI evidence room, just not publicly released. My guess is your claim would be it was photoshopped, or the FBI used one of their own range finders to photograph.
2 Likes
We didn’t see his underwear, either, but I’ll bet it was logged in as evidence and photographed as well as the rangefinder and his keys.
We can’t complain on the one hand that the FBI isn’t releasing all of the evidence, and then on the other assume no evidence exists.
2 Likes
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