Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

It must have been nearly a decade ago and I don't even remember the name of the guy who said it, but some nutter at McAdams newsgroup tried to refute my argument that the back of JFK's head suffered massive damage by claiming that there was no large protrusion there and that all we see is an illusion caused by Jackie covering a tiny section of the BOH with her white glove.

Of course, the argument was ludicrous since all he was really claiming is that the protrusion was even bigger than it appears.

Nonethess, other nutters over the years, apparently desperate for a way to combat this inconvenient issue, have combed the usenet archives and seized upon this goofy argument to use against me when the BOH issue is raised.

Duncan McCrae, who operates jfkassassinationforum.com was the most recent to do that. Duncan btw, had banned me from his forum, for posting an article about the shot at 285. He still swears to everyone that he is not a lone nutter :rolleyes:

Anyway, rather than debate with him for the next month I told him I would I make a brief Youtube presentation which will hopefully, lay this question to rest. Some of you may find it interesting because it presents very solid proof that the back of the President's head was severely damaged. Even more importantly, that damage was inflicted AFTER the explosion at 313 had completely subsided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

Robert Harris

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you [Jerry "I Lost My Shift & Period Keys" Craig] would be better off staying at jfkmurdersolved.com where the brightest and most knowledgeable JFK researchers are all located, and with whom you agree with about EVERYTHING!!!

Including, no doubt, the bald-faced lie told by Jerry's uncle, Roger Craig, about how Roger saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped, plain as day, on Oswald's Carcano rifle as it was discovered on the TSBD's sixth floor on 11/22/63.

That particular lie told by Roger Craig was certainly THE biggest and most blatant lie told by anyone connected in any way with the JFK murder case.

But try and get any conspiracist to say a single bad word about Big Fat xxxx Roger Craig. Since Big Fat xxxx Craig was on the "CT" side of the equation, naturally all of his many big fat lies are supposed to be ignored altogether--like his doozy about seeing "7.65 Mauser" on Oswald's Carcano (which was proven to be a Carcano via the Alyea film, which is another thing that all CTers will ignore until the cows come home).

RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm.jpg?t=1286615821

RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm-2.jpg?t=1286615824

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you [Jerry "I Lost My Shift & Period Keys" Craig] would be better off staying at jfkmurdersolved.com where the brightest and most knowledgeable JFK researchers are all located, and with whom you agree with about EVERYTHING!!!

Including, no doubt, the bald-faced lie told by Jerry's uncle, Roger Craig, about how Roger saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped, plain as day, on Oswald's Carcano rifle as it was discovered on the TSBD's sixth floor on 11/22/63.

That particular lie told by Roger Craig was certainly THE biggest and most blatant lie told by anyone connected in any way with the JFK murder case.

But try and get any conspiracist to say a single bad word about Big Fat xxxx Roger Craig. Since Big Fat xxxx Craig was on the "CT" side of the equation, naturally all of his many big fat lies are supposed to be ignored altogether--like his doozy about seeing "7.65 Mauser" on Oswald's Carcano (which was proven to be a Carcano via the Alyea film, which is another thing that all CTers will ignore until the cows come home).

RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm.jpg?t=1286615821

RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm-2.jpg?t=1286615824

David,

Will you please explain then, why offiers Weitzman and Boone, who found the rife and stated in their reports later that day, that the rifle was a Mauser, and why they aren't Big Fat Liers too?

And will Duncan please explain the photos he posted in the Mauser thread that seem to show two different rifles in the pictures?

Thanks,

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time---

Boone and Weitzman never claimed to see the words 7.65 MAUSER on any rifle in the Depository. Therefore, they didn't "LIE".

They were merely mistaken about the type of rifle that was being hoisted in the air by J.C. Day.

And when we look at the similarities, it's easy to see how such a mistake could easily be made:

Mauser-Carcano+Comparisons.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time---

Boone and Weitzman never claimed to see the words 7.65 MAUSER on any rifle in the Depository. Therefore, they didn't "LIE".

They were merely mistaken about the type of rifle that was being hoisted in the air by J.C. Day.

And when we look at the similarities, it's easy to see how such a mistake could easily be made:

Mauser-Carcano+Comparisons.jpg

Okay,

So Boone and Weitzman, who found the rifle, didn't say they saw the word "Mauser" on the gun, they just mistakenly believed it was a Mauser because of the superficial resemballance, and then, back at DPD HQ, they again mistakenly wrote in their reports that it was a Mauser, or they thought it was a Mauser, each making the same mistake twice, which doesn't make them Big Fat Liers like Roger Craig.

And you are either mistaken, or knowingly lie when you say that Roger Craig said he saw the word "Mauser" on Oswald's rifle, when in fact he says he saw it on the rifle Boone and Weitzman found, not Oswald's rifle, which we all know is a Carcano. Craig maintaine they were two different and distinct rifles.

And the photo above of a rifle on top of a bunch of boxes, next to a brick wall, cannot be the scene of the rifle being found hidden next to boxes, so what is it a picture of?

And what about the photo that Duncan posted in the Mauser thread of two distinct rifles in the same picture frames?

If one is Oswald's Carcano, what is the other one, and where did it come from?

Thanks,

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about the photo that Duncan posted in the Mauser thread of two distinct rifles in the same picture frames?

If one is Oswald's Carcano, what is the other one, and where did it come from?

Thanks,

BK

Here it is again, Bill.

r2.png

mauser3.jpg

Thanks Duncan,

So what's your analysis of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ramp up the gamma

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan, I'm sorry you have to resort to name-calling and insults. You could not have banned me because of what I said after I had already been banned. You banned me because I linked to an article about the shot at 285. And in my forum you even admitted that you considered it "spam", in spite of the fact that I had just written that article and had never posted it to your forum before.

You also admitted in my forum that you have never in your life posted a message that contradicted or attacked the lone nut theory, although you had posted countless messages attacking conspiracy people. I realize that you will appear more credible if you pretend to be a conspiracy buff, but I don't think people are falling for this nearly as much as you hope they are.

As for your pretense that we are debating about the position of Jackie's hand, I will be more than happy to agree with you, at least for the sake of argument, that her hand did block a small portion at the bottom-rear of the protrusion.

But who cares? The ONLY thing that matters is that the protrusion was was very, very real and that the damage in the back of JFK's head was inflicted after the 313 explosion had completely subsided.

You can also confirm that in the Nix film, Duncan. Look at these stills which are numbered by their corresponding Zapruder frames. Prior to 320, the BOH is flat as a proverbial board. But look what happens at 320. We see that same grotesque shape that we see in the Zapruder film. That tells us that the shot was fired at 319-320.

protrusion.jpg

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites

ramp up the gamma

Gammafied ( Is that a word? ) just for you, John.

rr2.png

Bill,

I don't really have an opinion, other than to me, it looks similar to a Mauser, albeit in a poor quality image.

This is why I posted the images...but I'm no expert on Rifles.

Duncan

Thanks Duncan, that's why I don't think its a Mauser (of any derivative I've seen). The stock is not right, BUT it should be identifiable for what it is.

edit add: yeah but then you'd have to qualify with an up or down gammafication. Maybe like in how one remembers stactite and stalagmite , g for ground and c for ceiling, up down , gammafigation or gammafication. ?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan, you must know that I posted that montage at your forum months ago, in reply to a video by Rick. Both of us agreed that the large protrusion was clearly visible in the Nix film, just as it is in the Zapruder film.

337 is the sharpest frame in that part of the film, but we can also see that very massive protrusion, quite clearly at 335. You need to come out of denial, Duncan. You're beginning to sound like David VP :lol:

335.png

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan, you must know that I posted that montage at your forum months ago, in reply to a video by Rick. Both of us agreed that the large protrusion was clearly visible in the Nix film, just as it is in the Zapruder film.

337 is the sharpest frame in that part of the film, but we can also see that very massive protrusion, quite clearly at 335. You need to come out of denial, Duncan. You're beginning to sound like David VP :lol:

335.png

Robert,

Rick Needham agreeing with you holds no weight with me.

He is convinced that Umbrella man fired an ice dart in to JFK's throat in order to paralyse him so that the other shooters would have an easy kill shot.

You need to get with it Bob. I think a visit to your optician would be a good start.

Duncan

Duncan, are you actually claiming that you see no protrusion in the back of the head in that frame??????

Link to post
Share on other sites

nix gifs showing direction of blood splatter and fragment ....to the rear..fwtaw b

i do not know the why ?? but you must click on each of the gifs in order to activate the gif movement...does anyone know why the gifs do not post with the action any longer..i none of my gifs now post activated....many thanks b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...