They're Coming To Take Him Away Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ep1sJwohWE

Edited October 9, 2010 by Duncan MacRae

[David Von Pein]

Duncan,

I know that the "protrusion at the back of the head" theory that is often touted as the truth by conspiracy theorists is total nonsense (mainly because I know that the back of President Kennedy's head is completely intact [i.e., there is absolutely NO MISSING SKULL BONE in the rear portions of JFK's head, as the X-ray below proves for now and for all-time]), but your "indentation" caption leaves me scratching my head as well.

I need further explanation regarding your "indentation" theory. You've placed a line around the contour of JFK's head that you believe to be the accurate configuration of Kennedy's head at Z337, correct?

But what is the "indentation" you're referring to? What's causing the indented area? (Your line around the head doesn't "indent" to conform to your indented area.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. It sounds like you're saying that there WAS, indeed, a large damaged area in the exact place where the CTers claim to see a "protrusion" of JFK's skull.

But you surely aren't suggesting that the rear of JFK's head was "indented" in some fashion--are you, Duncan? Because the following two images are the best evidence (and always have been) to debunk the silliness spouted by CTers for decades regarding any perceived "BOH" wound in the occipital (right-rear) area of John Kennedy's head:

Edited October 9, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Where I am pointing the arrow to, is where I approximate the bullet point of entry at the side of the head.

Huh?

No bullet entered the "side" of JFK's head. What on Earth are you talking about?

[David Von Pein]

The back right side of his head.

Oh.

And you think the small bullet hole created a visible and very noticeable "indentation" that can be seen in the Zapruder Film?

That's a strange theory, Duncan.

[John Dolva]

the tip of the nose is right lower on the xray behind this is a massive fragmentation, the bits have just been moved back into place @#$% %^&**

[Robert Harris]

David, you could not possibly be more wrong. That massive protrusion was very real and it was inflicted well after the explosion at 313 had completely subsided. You can see it in frame 335.

and 337

This video addresses Duncan's strange claim that the position of Jackie's hand, somehow has some kind of relevance to any of this.

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

[Robert Harris]

And finally, we can see precisely when that damage was inflicted, by examining the Nix film. These images are numbered by their equivalent Zapruder frames. Notice that the BOH was quite flat until 320, after which that massive protrusion appeared.

[Robert Harris]

Duncan you can blowup any digital image and make it appear pixelated.

You need to consider how much you are impressing people who can plainly see the protrusion in Zapruder film frames as well as the Nix film.

[Robert Harris]

Duncan,

I know that the "protrusion at the back of the head" theory that is often touted as the truth by conspiracy theorists is total nonsense (mainly because I know that the back of President Kennedy's head is completely intact [i.e., there is absolutely NO MISSING SKULL BONE in the rear portions of JFK's head, as the X-ray below proves for now and for all-time]), but your "indentation" caption leaves me scratching my head as well.

I need further explanation regarding your "indentation" theory. You've placed a line around the contour of JFK's head that you believe to be the accurate configuration of Kennedy's head at Z337, correct?

But what is the "indentation" you're referring to? What's causing the indented area? (Your line around the head doesn't "indent" to conform to your indented area.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. It sounds like you're saying that there WAS, indeed, a large damaged area in the exact place where the CTers claim to see a "protrusion" of JFK's skull.

But you surely aren't suggesting that the rear of JFK's head was "indented" in some fashion--are you, Duncan? Because the following two images are the best evidence (and always have been) to debunk the silliness spouted by CTers for decades regarding any perceived "BOH" wound in the occipital (right-rear) area of John Kennedy's head:

Also David, I am disappointed that you would claim that this photo corroborates your argument that there was no BOH damage, since I have previously cited Dr. Boswell to you, clearly stating that he pulled the hair and scalp up over the top of the head, giving the appearance that there was no damage in that area.

Why do you now pretend to be ignorant of that fact?

Earlier today, I posted a message to this forum entitled, "the Autopsy Photo Mystery", which again, cites Boswell confirming that there was massive damage in the BOH which was covered over. Perhaps you can refresh your memory by reading it and perhaps you will stop spreading false information about the existence and nature of that damage.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad! I thought everyone by now was aware that the HSCA photo is a fake, where the blow-out to the back of head has been

concealed by a scalp that cannot possibly be that of JFK. Better images of the blow-out can be seen in even later frames,

such as 374, which I accented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) in the chapter, "Which Film is 'The Zapruder Film'?"

Easy access to proof that Harris and von Pein are both wrong and that Duncan is on the right track may be found in Chapter

30 of "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ , especially on pages

357 to 360. And of course, as Doug Horne reported in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), a group of Hollywood experts had found that

the area Duncan discusses was crudely covered-up (literally) by being painted over in black, which Roderick Ryan had told

Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), years and years ago. I discuss Doug's work on the fabrication of the Zapruder film in

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml Jim

Duncan,

I know that the "protrusion at the back of the head" theory that is often touted as the truth by conspiracy theorists is total nonsense (mainly because I know that the back of President Kennedy's head is completely intact [i.e., there is absolutely NO MISSING SKULL BONE in the rear portions of JFK's head, as the X-ray below proves for now and for all-time]), but your "indentation" caption leaves me scratching my head as well.

I need further explanation regarding your "indentation" theory. You've placed a line around the contour of JFK's head that you believe to be the accurate configuration of Kennedy's head at Z337, correct?

But what is the "indentation" you're referring to? What's causing the indented area? (Your line around the head doesn't "indent" to conform to your indented area.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. It sounds like you're saying that there WAS, indeed, a large damaged area in the exact place where the CTers claim to see a "protrusion" of JFK's skull.

But you surely aren't suggesting that the rear of JFK's head was "indented" in some fashion--are you, Duncan? Because the following two images are the best evidence (and always have been) to debunk the silliness spouted by CTers for decades regarding any perceived "BOH" wound in the occipital (right-rear) area of John Kennedy's head:

Also David, I am disappointed that you would claim that this photo corroborates your argument that there was no BOH damage, since I have previously cited Dr. Boswell to you, clearly stating that he pulled the hair and scalp up over the top of the head, giving the appearance that there was no damage in that area.

Why do you now pretend to be ignorant of that fact?

Earlier today, I posted a message to this forum entitled, "the Autopsy Photo Mystery", which again, cites Boswell confirming that there was massive damage in the BOH which was covered over. Perhaps you can refresh your memory by reading it and perhaps you will stop spreading false information about the existence and nature of that damage.