Jump to content
The Education Forum

Nonsense


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FYI, I have contributed to some of those threads.

ANd they are about a potentially explosive revelation about a key piece of evidence in this case.

That is a little bit differen than what is more and more like a personal vendetta you have against Bob.

ANd if that is so, why don't you keep the conflict at your own forum?

A similar thing was alleged when Jack's alteration claims were coming under fire. Duncan has the right to address each claim that comes up. Having several threads on the same claim like 'assassin shoots through a closed window' for instance would be a bit much, but Duncan has the right in my view to single out each and every claim that he feels is in error. Why should disinformation being exposed be limited to just one forum .... don't people have the right to choose to read or ignore the threads of their choice - I do! I ignore many threads that don't deal with aspects of the assassination that interest me.

Selectionposterimages2-1.jpg

Duncan is correct about the misinterpretation that Harris makes ... I saw it on Youtube a while back. That error has been made by others in the past and corrected on several of the forums ... I would have thought Bob had seen that data before.

Either Harris chose the image or created it by adding contrast to it, but when the hair is lightened/contrasted enough with glare, then it blends into Jackie's suit and makes it look as though the front top half of the President's head is missing. Anytime that such a reckless mistake has been made which can mislead a lot of less informed people, then it is a good thing to most who wish to keep as much information that we do have to work with - correct and reliable. It would be nice if Harris had his claims peer reviewed before presenting them to the masses.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't people have the right to choose to read or ignore the threads of their choice - I do! I ignore many threads that don't deal with aspects of the assassination that interest me.

I do the same thing that Bill does

I ignore tons of pointless threads that are started all the time, no need to complain, just ignore them

If Duncan started 100 threads debunking more Harris garbage then I will read each and every one and post my views and opinions in each and every one because im sick and tired of Harris just making crap up and passing it off as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep I sure am learning a lot of new info from this.

THat is what forums are for, right?

Jim,

For what ever reason this thread seems to have your interest, so it must be doing something. After all, this is an education forum is it not? We have learned so far that Harris made another bad claim and that the top front half of JFK's head wasn't missing .... this might be important to members who didn't know these things already.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really happening?

Is Duncan opening up another thread on Harris and the Z film?

Wow and why is he allowed to?

I had always hoped that if someone ever got this obsessed with me, it would be a voluptuous female :ice

As for the bogus accusation that I couldn't correctly identify the boundary of the damage in the upper-superior part of the head, this is from a recent video that these clowns have seen and responded to in the past. The outline is in the original video.

outline.jpg

What is important is, not that they were wrong in making that accusation, but that they knew they were wrong when they made it.

You can see the entire video here. Of course, Duncan pretends that he sees no damage in the back of JFK's head and that this is all an illusion caused by Jackie's hand.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had always hoped that if someone ever got this obsessed with me, it would be a voluptuous female :ice

Harris,

I think you want it to be about you, but it is not. It is about your reckless use of inferior images that seem to lead to you making outlandish claims to people who are quick to accept your word as gospel because they don't know the data before them well enough so to know if you are right or wrong. I think that as long as you feel that you have the right to post such nonsense as fact, then Duncan has the right to show people what he believes your mistakes to be.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is important is, not that they were wrong in making that accusation, but that they knew they were wrong when they made it.

You can see the entire video here. Of course, Duncan pretends that he sees no damage in the back of JFK's head and that this is all an illusion caused by Jackie's hand.

Robert continues to live in his land of dreams and Fairy tales.

His video was made AFTER repeat AFTER i pointed out his mistakes which he has ammended.

It was in fact uploaded to Youtube on 08 October 2010

Duncan, I have never met anyone who is so consistently wrong about nearly everything.

This is from my first Youtube video, dated Nov. 1, 2007

other.jpg

You've never corrected me on anything, Duncan. All you've done is everything in your power to misrepresent the facts of the assassination and the people who present them. By comparison, you make Von Pein look like a paragon of integrity :D

And BTW, as Duncan and his lackeys also know, I have never in my life, claimed that that part of his head was missing. I said the hair and scalp was missing, which any idiot can see, is true. That hair was STILL in place however, well after the 313 explosion had subsided. It was ripped out when the second headshot was fired.

You can see the entire presentation here:

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see the entire presentation here:

No thanks i've seen it already. It's junk which is only supported by your Greer did it brigade Youtube groupies..

Try addressing your mistakes which I have exposed in the opening post, I know that you can do it in between naps.

Duncan, do you for once, intend to admit that you were wrong in claiming that I said the upper front of the head was missing and that you deliberately misrepresented me?

Don't you have even enough integrity to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's junk which is only supported by your Greer did it brigade Youtube groupies.."

In case there is anyone out there who is still uncertain about how honest Mr. McCrae is, and how reckless he is in his accusations, this video which I posted more than two years ago, should help to clarify that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, do you for once, intend to admit that you were wrong in claiming that I said the upper front of the head was missing and that you deliberately misrepresented me?

Don't you have even enough integrity to do that?

Would you like to show everyone your integrity by admitting that your quote "you deliberately misrepresented me" is a load of old Harris garbage?

Was my question too hard for you Duncan?

Do you intend to at least admit that you were wrong and issue some kind of apology?

And yes Duncan, there is no doubt that you are doing this deliberately, since you have already admitted that prior to this latest attack, you saw a video in which I outlined JFK's head accurately.

And you also deliberately tried to make it appear that I support "the driver did it", as well as your lunatic description of the damaged window and blinds in the Daltex building.

Why does everything have to be based on deception, Duncan?

What's wrong with simply dealing with the facts honestly? If you were really right about this stuff you wouldn't need to be playing all these stupid games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, do you for once, intend to admit that you were wrong in claiming that I said the upper front of the head was missing and that you deliberately misrepresented me?

Don't you have even enough integrity to do that?

Would you like to show everyone your integrity by admitting that your quote "you deliberately misrepresented me" is a load of old Harris garbage?

Was my question too hard for you Duncan?

Do you intend to at least admit that you were wrong and issue some kind of apology?

And yes Duncan, there is no doubt that you are doing this deliberately, since you have already admitted that prior to this latest attack, you saw a video in which I outlined JFK's head accurately.

And you also deliberately tried to make it appear that I support "the driver did it", as well as your lunatic description of the damaged window and blinds in the Daltex building.

Why does everything have to be based on deception, Duncan?

What's wrong with simply dealing with the facts honestly? If you were really right about this stuff you wouldn't need to be playing all these stupid games.

These are the facts.

In a previous thread which is archived, you said that Jackie's glove, which I outlined, was not Jackie's glove. Your head analysis, be it 2007 or 2010 is therefore incorrect.

First of all, I never said Jackie's glove was not Jackie's glove but then by now I think everyone is used to that kind of BS from you.

But the issue at hand is your bogus claim that I thought the upper-superior part of JFK's head was totally blown out. I never said such a thing and you know it. Nor did I correctly outline the head in my recent video, because you corrected me as you also claimed. I did the same thing in a video presentation three years ago.

So as is almost always the case, you are wrong again. You made the accusation, accusing me of promoting a bogus theory that I never mentioned in my life. And you were wrong in trying to convince the forum that you corrected me.

A man with even a shred of decency would admit his deceit and sincerely apologize.

Should we be holding our breath :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sisco scan showing jackies left collar in sunlight and her right collar in shadow.

also showing kennedy's suit, the left side is in sunlight and his right side is in shadow.

Click on thumbnail to view full size.

Picture_20.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

This is from my first Youtube video, dated Nov. 1, 2007

other.jpg

outline.jpg

Time to get yourself a new computer screen robert.

That contrast is hurting my eyes.

The outline in the image above is incorrect, you have included part of jackies chin and left dress collar !

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

This is from my first Youtube video, dated Nov. 1, 2007

outline.jpg

Time to get yourself a new computer screen robert.

That contrast is hurting my eyes.

The outline in the image above is incorrect, you have included part of jackies chin and left dress collar !

And you are full of <DELETED BY MODERATOR>, my friend.

Only an idiot would believe that Jackie's collar and chin was outlined in that illustration or any of the other crap that you are posting. This is the image and it isn't going to change, no matter how much you lone nutcases babble about it and misrepresent the evidence.

337.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...