Thank you for the different perspective. Based on your aerial view, I agree that the harvester would block his view of the stage from the AAR Building 5 wall.
Initially, in my analysis, I wasn’t even concerned if he could actually see the stage. The harvester blocking the view from the AAR 6 building wall was added as further evidence against that location. I will now go back and update that slide to address obstructions to the stage more specifically… However, that change will not change my inference that he was seen using the rangefinder against the AAR Building 5 wall.
The criteria from that text message was not that he could actually see the stage, it was simply that he was “looking towards stage.” The word “towards” describes direction, not ability. Using his rangefinder to confirm an obstruction is just as reasonable as using it to confirm range. Perhaps that is why he used his rangefinder, not to just get the range, but to also use the zoom capability as I’ve stated before, or even just the narrowed view, to determine if he could take his shots from the roof of that building, AAR5. Seeing the Harvester as an obstruction, he then realizes he needs to take those shots from the roof of AGR 6. That would answer your question below.
As for your statement that I use evidence that doesn’t exist, I challenge you to state one of the pieces of evidence I listed on Slide 11 that does not exist. I can produce each item listed. Based on another comment of yours regarding this topic, if I had to guess, you might not realize that evidence exists that Nicol stated Crooks was seen “up against the building.” If so, here you go, the referenced text message. You did include it in your post above, but perhaps you overlooked that statement in the last text bubble.
So, bottom line, my inferred rangefinder use location does not contradict the evidence of Crooks “looking towards stage,” whereas yours does by virtue of it not being “up against [a] building.” I totally agree with your proposed location having visibility of the stage, but that technically was not a criteria demanded by the evidence.
Here is the revision made to Slide 15 of my analysis, based on your aerial image. While it did not change my inference, it did change that aspect of my argument for it. Thank you.
I think I may have been reading it backwards, confusing myself, but I’m glad I was able to help you get a clearer picture! Thank you for actually deciphering it!