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

[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.

[Royell Storing]

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.

  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]

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.

"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?

[Charles Collins]

  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.

The camera angles can sometimes play tricks on us. I don't know if this will be helpful or not, but here is a crop from an aerial photo made in April, 1967. I'm guessing that this date might be reasonably close to the date that the image posted by Lance was made. Again this was years after the assassination. So routine maintenance might have included shortening the picket fence. It seems to show the north/south section of the picket fence ending near the south edge of the pergola shelter.




https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1030229/

[Royell Storing]

The camera angles can sometimes play tricks on us. I don't know if this will be helpful or not, but here is a crop from an aerial photo made in April, 1967. I'm guessing that this date might be reasonably close to the date that the image posted by Lance was made. Again this was years after the assassination. So routine maintenance might have included shortening the picket fence. It seems to show the north/south section of the picket fence ending near the south edge of the pergola shelter.




https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1030229/

   You must be looking at a better quality photo than I am looking at above. I do Not see any of the N-S picket fence and only about 3/4 of the Pergola Shelter.
   I have viewed a short snippet of film on You Tube that showed the area behind the Black Dog Man area. This snippet included a good view of the (N) section of the N-S picket fence. I believe this footage was shot the day of the assassination, but I do Not know that for a fact or even who filmed it. That said, if this footage was shot on 11/22/63, that (N) section of the N-S picket fence looked extremely good. It "glistened" like it had just been shellacked or had some kind of weather proofing applied. This "glistening" in my opinion accounted for the "glare" we see from the picket fence in the background of "Willis 5"/The Black Dog Man photo. Based on the section of picket fence I viewed on this You Tube snippet, I seriously doubt that that section of picket fencing would have deteriorated due to weather by 1967. If you want to view this film snippet, let me know and I will tell you exactly where it is located on You Tube.