The area behind the picket fence (and a bit about Lee Bowers)

[Royell Storing]

Jeez, man. Do you really believe that nearly every photo and film from Dealey Plaza was somehow altered?

   I am unaware of a "Two Sprig Tree" being in this area. I have studied this immediate area closely due to the Gordon Arnold story. And here on this photo we have an alleged sprig tree suddenly cropping up in the same general area that Arnold claimed to have been standing/filming.
   I proffered the Allen Photo as proof there was No "Two Sprig Tree" in this area. Therefore, I do Not, "...believe that every photo and film from Dealey Plaza was somehow altered".
   If you have an explanation for the alleged Two Sprig Tree being on that photo, I would be interested in hearing it.

[Tommy Shanks]

Believing Gordon Arnold is the first problem. Why on earth would the evil conspirators waste time adding a tree into the film and photo record?

[Royell Storing]

Believing Gordon Arnold is the first problem. Why on earth would the evil conspirators waste time adding a tree into the film and photo record?

   I asked you for an explanation regarding the Two Sprig Tree being in that photo. You have yet to provide any explanation. That's because there is no explaining it. There is absolutely no sprig tree in this area. People want to swear by the assassination images until they don't. In reality, that sprig tree was Never there.

[Michael T. Griffith]

More reaching and straining to discredit inconvenient evidence. Bowers gave virtually the same account to Mark Lane in 1966 that he gave to the WC in 1964. No objective person who watches Bowers' interview with Lane could come away thinking that Bowers had an agenda or was padding his account. To both Lane and the WC, Bowers described seeing three cars recon the area behind the knoll shortly before the shooting and seeing one of the drivers appearing to talk into a handheld device. Bowers noted to Lane that he told the FBI and the Dallas police that two of the shots came in rapid succession, almost on top of each other, and that he didn't feel they could have been fired by the same rifle.

From his 14-foot tower, Bowers quite easily could have seen the events that he described. He was right around 120 yards from the grassy knoll. People can see football players and discern their actions from farther away than that in college and professional football stadiums.

WC apologists don't like Bowers' testimony partly because there is no innocent explanation for the three cars that reconned the area behind the knoll within 5-20 minutes of the shooting. 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Bowers.pdf

[Royell Storing]

 Based on his WC Testimony, Bowers seemed like a no-nonsense kinda guy. He directly answered the WC Questions without meandering and/or interjecting all kinds of extraneous information. This is why I think Bowers did Not mention his possibly using binoculars. He simply was Not asked. There's just no way with the naked eye that Bowers could control train cars on the other side of Commerce St. or on the top of the Triple Underpass without the use of binoculars or some other kind of magnifying visual aid. Bowers description of the 3 cars and what was going on inside them, along with his detailed description of a Plaid Shirt Man & a White Shirt Man being "in line" with the Triple Underpass are indicative of his using what would be standard equipment inside every "Control Tower" of any kind. A pair of binoculars.

[Charles Collins]

Sometimes I like to try to solve some questions regarding some of the photos. I believe that I have resolved some items in the photo that Lance posted in, I believe, the first post of this thread.



1.  First I believe that Royell is correct about the small tree (blue arrow). It appears to have been transplanted from north of the pergola shelter to south of the pergola shelter. The image that James Hackerott posted shows what seems to me to probably be the same tree but apparently north of the pergola shelter. I have viewed the possibilities in a good 3D computer model from various angles, and it appears to me that Royell is correct and I stand corrected for my assumptions in my earlier post. Thanks Royell.

2.  However, as I believe Lance already pointed out, there is clearly visible the distinct rear end of a 1965 Chevrolet (yellow arrow). The 1965 models would not have even shown up in the showrooms before the fall of 1964. So that would be the earliest this photo could have been taken, but probably a bit later than that. Therefore I believe that transplanting a small tree like that to a different location (at least about a year after the assassination) should be considered a normal and typical maintenance revision and irrelevant to the assassination. Since it is irrelevant, we have no reason to need to know why someone decided that the small tree should be relocated.

3.  The upper part of the post office building can be seen upper left of the image (red arrow).

4.  This photo does appear to me to have been taken from the vicinity of the tower. However, it does also appear to have been taken from standing on the ground level versus from the 14’ level of the tower. This was determined by viewing various angles with a good 3D computer model.

[Charles Collins]

One other aspect of the photo that Lance posted (that a good 3D model shows) is that the sidewalk and partial street that can be seen between the pergola shelter and the picket fence (just above the blue arrow) is Commerce Street. Elm Street (below) is hidden from view by the grassy knoll. I had assumed wrongly that it was Elm Street.