From Behind the Fence

[Steve Barber]

      What you are proffering is HEARSAY. It does Not matter whether it was Blakey recalling this "story" or Joe The Bartender down at Hanks Pizza. And just for the record, my "support" has always been The Truth.

 Utter  B.S. ,  Storing.Your support is not the truth.  You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and smacked you a good one in the face.

[Della Cross]

For a long time, I didn't believe there was a shot from the front. Several things have now made me think it's at least possible. First, the well-known statement by Parkland MD Malcolm Perry, at a press conference an hour or two after the assassination, that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Perry said he had treated hundreds of patients with similar wounds and he knew the difference between an exit and entrance wound. The SS confiscated all film and transcripts of that press conference. [i(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry)[/i]  Second, Perry, while still in Parkland, was threatened by an SS agent and warned to retract his statement about the entrance wound. Why would they have done such a thing? The above web page states, correctly, that "Malcolm Perry was a victim of a large-scale crime." Third, NPIC analyst Dino Brugioni, who saw the original Z film on the evening of Nov. 23, 1963, which had been brought to Washington by two SS agents, who themselves had not yet seen the film, said the film showed a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air.  Those frames are not in the version we see today. Doug Horne is correct that if any aspect of the Z film has been altered, the entire film is suspect.  Fourth, the bullet found by retired SS agent Paul Landis on top of the rear seat of the JFK limo, might be the one that hit JFK's throat from the front. 

[Charles Collins]

The still image (from the video) in the first post of this thread with the camera basically looking over Holland’s shoulder while on the triple underpass shows an aspect that I had not realized until now. That is the close alignment of Holland’s position with the area where smoke was reportedly seen and the sixth floor sniper’s nest window in the TSBD. Like all the photos of the Secret Service Agents, etc, during the shooting, Holland was apparently looking at ground level for a gunman. Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper’s nest window would tend to draw someone’s attention at Holland’s location towards the source of the sounds. And as he (and many others) was apparently only focusing on ground level, the area where smoke was reported is aligned very closely with the sniper’s nest window. So, it isn’t like his attention was drawn in a drastically different direction from where the shots apparently originated.

[Royell Storing]

The still image (from the video) in the first post of this thread with the camera basically looking over Holland’s shoulder while on the triple underpass shows an aspect that I had not realized until now. That is the close alignment of Holland’s position with the area where smoke was reportedly seen and the sixth floor sniper’s nest window in the TSBD. Like all the photos of the Secret Service Agents, etc, during the shooting, Holland was apparently looking at ground level for a gunman. Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper’s nest window would tend to draw someone’s attention at Holland’s location towards the source of the sounds. And as he (and many others) was apparently only focusing on ground level, the area where smoke was reported is aligned very closely with the sniper’s nest window. So, it isn’t like his attention was drawn in a drastically different direction from where the shots apparently originated.

      Based on your, "Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper's nest window would tend to draw someone's attention at Holland's location towards the source of the sounds", would therefore mean that Holland would have HEARD ALL 3 SHOTS FIRED FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST WINDOW. Holland has Never made this claim. Are you Now claiming there were fewer than 3 shots fired from the sniper's nest , or is your contention when scrutinized morphing into a slice of swiss chesse.

[Charles Collins]

      Based on your, "Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper's nest window would tend to draw someone's attention at Holland's location towards the source of the sounds", would therefore mean that Holland would have HEARD ALL 3 SHOTS FIRED FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST WINDOW. Holland has Never made this claim. Are you Now claiming there were fewer than 3 shots fired from the sniper's nest , or is your contention when scrutinized morphing into a slice of swiss chesse.

I am simply pointing out that the direction of the area of the reported smoke (from Holland’s point of view at the time of the shots) is very similar to the direction of the sniper’s window. It is not “way off to the left somewhere” from Holland’s point of view as I had previously assumed/imagined.

[Richard Smith]

All anyone has to do here is look at an aerial view of Dealey Plaza.  No assassin could or would have stood in such an exposed position behind that fence.  They would have been seen and apprehended.  It has only become a suspect location because it appears to give seclusion and proximity from the Elm St. perspective of the assassination.  That is a false impression.  The backside of the fence is a very exposed location.  And that doesn't even get into the logic of framing Oswald as the assassin from the 6th floor window of a building using a specific rifle, but then actually assassinating JFK from the GK using an entirely different rifle.  There is no unconvincing Bigfoot believers and JFK conspiracy Grassy Knoll believers because they would not have reached these conclusions in the first place had they applied facts and logic to reach these conclusions.  It simply isn't so.

[Della Cross]

Richard Smith wrote: "There is no unconvincing Bigfoot believers and JFK conspiracy Grassy Knoll believers because they would not have reached these conclusions in the first place had they applied facts and logic to reach these conclusions.  It simply isn't so."

You make some good points.  I'm not entirely convinced myself about a shot from the front. But your post ignores some of the evidence I mentioned. Perhaps you'd care to speculate on why the SS went nuts in Parkland Hospital. First, they threatened Dr. Perry for giving a medical opinion about a gunshot wound, a subject where he has expertise. Then the SS confiscated all evidence of the Parkland Nov. 22 press conference. Then they threatened to rescind Dr. Perry's medical license unless said what they wanted him to say.  Only extortionists behave like this. When the SS first began its terror campaign against Dr. Perry on Nov. 22 -- and it continued for many years -- no one could possibly have known whether a shot had been fired from the front or not. So why did the SS behave this way? Perhaps you have some facts and logic that can explain it.