JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The area behind the picket fence (and a bit about Lee Bowers)
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.
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on August 27, 2025, 01:16:15 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Thanks Charles. If anyone has ever previously seen an image of this sprig tree being in this area of the Knoll, (blue arrow), please let this forum know. Another issue with this image is the missing section of the N-S picket fence. To the (R) of that Blue Arrow, we clearly see a tree trunk from the ground up. The N-S section of the picket fence extended (N) beyond the pergola shelter. That (N) section of the N-S picket fence should be blocking our view of the bottom portion of that tree trunk. That same tree stood within mere feet of the N-S picket fence.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on August 20, 2025, 08:00:48 PM ---This is not an LN or CT post, merely informational.
When I visited Dealey Plaza in 1987, I was struck (like everyone else) by how compact it is. Our visit was brief, and I paid no attention to anything behind the picket fence or TSBD.
The six-minute YouTube video below, from a couple of years ago, is quite interesting. Beginning at about the 3-minute mark, the photographer (obviously an LN proponent) spends considerable time panning the entire area behind the picket fence and TSBD. It’s fascinating (to me) how utterly wide open it is.
I was also struck by Lee Bowers’ tower, which is both lower and farther back than most written materials tend to suggest. It is Interlocking Tower 106 of the railroad and was put into service in 1916. It is now owned by the Sixth Floor Museum and was renovated in the 2000s. It is 14 feet high, and the Warren Commission said it sits “approximately 50 yards from the back of the TSBD.”
This short TikTok video pans forward to the picket fence and says “150 yards” to it: https://www.tiktok.com/@solvingjfk/video/7203459605299547435. Anyway, it’s quite a distance. Below the YouTube video is a photograph with red lines purporting to show Bowers’ line of sight to the motorcade. If nothing else, it helps orient us to where everything is located.
There seem to be virtually no contemporaneous photos of Bowers’ view. The black and white image below is the only one I could find, and it’s not clear that it’s actually from Tower 106.
If there’s any LN-orientation to this post, I guess I might question Bowers’ ability to observe the level of detail he purported to have observed as stated in his affidavit the day of the assassination, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337486/m1/1/. After that, of course, his story got even "better." (Too bad he "had to be silenced" by "them." Why did he have to be silenced three years after the JFKA, enquiring minds wonder?)
Well, that's all from me for now. Say hi to Mom.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7uy01-vqM
--- End quote ---
"If there’s any LN-orientation to this post, I guess I might question Bowers’ ability to observe the level of detail he purported to have observed as stated in his affidavit the day of the assassination,"
What "level of detail" are you referring to?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version