I agree completely with "bear". But even then, you would have to be really unlucky to have that tower directly on the line of your transmission path. If it is, it would seem to me that if you bought a 500 foot spool of RG-56 and held a test antenna 500 feet to the left or right of where your antenna is located now, you'd get much improved reception because the RF shadow of the tower is no wider than the tower, and, with the penumbra, it is even narrower than that.
Or it might be easier to do something like that with an A/C inverter and a portable test rig, if you are in an urban situation where you can't string a long coax to a distant reception antenna.
Scrounge up a copy of Satellite, Off-Air SMATV by Dr. Frank Baylin, probably published in the late 1980s (my cover and first few pages are missing, so I can't find the copyright date). On page 93, it has the formulas for determining phase cancellation distances between horizontally stacked antennas. One way that cable companies cancel the effects of interfering signals is by having two horizontally stacked antennas pointed at the main signal path, but spaced so that the reflected signal gets to one antenna exactly 180 degrees out of phase with when it reaches the other and thus, those signal components, which are visuallly equal in magnitude, cancel each other out. Unfortunately, spacing is unique for each channel, so this technique can only reliably clean up one channel with each antenna pair.
On page 195 of my edition is a useful table that lets you use the distance between the main analog image and the ghost to determine how much further the reflected signal is traveling.. Figure 9-1 there has "Ghost Displacement versus Reflection Distance" plots for different size TV screens. For example, if a ghost image is one inch to the right of the main image on a 15" diagonal TV screen, then the multipath signal has traveled about 5000 feet further than the direct one, whereas that one inch of image displacement looks like about 2,700 feet of extra travel distance on a 25" TV.
On the same page is Figure 9-4, which demonstrates that an ellipse is the locus of all points of the same distance differential between the direct path and multipath signals. You can stick pins on a map that has both the transmitting and receiving sites on it and connect them with a thread that is equal in length to the multipath distance and use that thread to guide a pencil in developing your own plot of that ellipse on the map, and then you can find something big on that ellipse and that is what your signals are bouncing off. For all the good it does you.
It did me a lot of good several years ago. I was trying to mitigate really harsh analog ghost images at a campground in College Park, Maryland, and I knew, roughly, the direction that the multipath signals were coming from, because I identified secondary antenna peaking in that direction that exceeded what a sidelobe would develop at that azimuth, but I couldn't tell how far away the reflecting object was because of the treeline. So I knew I had to move my antenna, but I needed a more informed basis to speculate where else on the property to put it. Otherwise. I'd have to walk around the property with light, 25 foot pole with a tiny UHF antenna on it and then try to make sense of my haphazard collection of prospective relocation analyses.
I drew the ellipse, using the thread and pencil, and bingo, it went right through Byrd Stadium at the University of Maryland. Armed with that knowledge, it was much easier to certify the efficacy of the new antenna location than it would have been if I hadn't known how far away the reflection was coming from. I set up two new antennas, about 500 feet closer to the transmitters, and they almost totally eliminated the ghosts. Obviously, I had a little bigger budget to work with than most of you do. The campground serves 400 sites and I did this before DirecTV made local TV available in that market.
Some of you can surely figure out how to generate such an ellipse with a computer. I can't. About forty years ago, I arrived at a fateful, erroneous conclusion that I now regret. I attended a science exposition at which a behemoth called the IBM 360 was the center of attraction. Computer technology was to be the wave of the future, and someday, we'd all be using these things. That's what they told us.
Well, I could do anything that I saw them try to programing it to do in less time than it took them to program it, using the punch cards that they did, and the only thing it could tie me at was tic-tac-toe. It couldn't even play chess.
I concluded that computers were a fad and that, rather than get in on the ground floor, I'd let them pass by, like the hula hop did, and catch the next fad. Fool on me!