Proof the fatal shot came from somewhere else other then the rear

[Tom Scully]

I thought it worth my time to attempt to persuade Brian not to engage in a
double standard I cannot avoid regarding as hypocritical. I try to keep on myself a burden of proof I demand of the DPD, FBI, CIA, and the WC. I cannot fathom what burden of proof you constrain yourself to. You assume a lot, as far as what is or is not compelling evidence supporting your own conclusions, or am I mistaking "style" for conclusions. If you conclude, instead of embracing a strong suspicion that the Z-film has been altered, or the BYP, for that matter, I have to part ways with you if I am to maintain a standard of proof I do hold the government agencies I mentioned above, to.

Hi Tom, you're referring to a double standard, so can you articulate specifically what both parts are?

There's only two kinds of evidence, physical evidence and witness statements. The witness statements made under oath (in this case) are probably no more reliable than any other witnesses statements, whether they were made at the time or much later.

What specifically is the double standard?

Evaluating Eyewitness Identification - Page 92

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199706883

Brian Cutler, ‎Margaret Bull Kovera - 2009 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
For example, police reports and witness statements typically provide perpetrator descriptions and indicate the ... Information taken soon after the crime, such as that contained in police reports and in witness statements, should be a more valid ...

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcemen...ements.htm
...........
Witness statements should normally be taken as soon as possible to ensure that:

the events are still fresh in the mind of the witness;
the evidence is recorded before the witness is tempted/has opportunity to discuss their evidence with others.

This approach will give you the best evidence from the witness and make it more difficult for the defence to challenge the witness's evidence.

http://www.massbar.org/publications/sect...statements
..........
Statements of either the parties or witnesses, taken immediately after the accident and involving a material issue in an action arising out of that accident, constitute "unique catalysts in the search for truth" in the judicial process; and where the party seeking their discovery was disabled from making his own investigation at the time, there is sufficient showing under the amended Rule to warrant discovery.

[T]he lapse of many months and the dimming of memory provides much reason for [the plaintiff's] counsel to examine any substantially contemporaneous declarations or admissions. Aside from what assistance it may be in the preparation of a case for trial, the production of such a statement, after the lapse of time, permits a more realistic appraisal of cases and should stimulate the disposition of cases without trials.[SUP]22[/SUP]

The court also cited the advisory committee notes to the 1970 amendments of Rule 26, which noted that the circumstances when a witness statement would be discoverable included when the witness had "given a fresh and contemporaneous account in a written statement while he is available to the party seeking discovery only a substantial time thereafter."[SUP]23[/SUP]
Two significant district court cases are Hamilton v. Canal Barge Company, Inc. and Suggs v. Whitaker.[SUP]24[/SUP] Hamilton involved statements that had been taken on the day of the accident. The court held that "there is now substantial authority for the proposition that statements taken from witnesses close to the time of the occurrence are unique, in that they provide an immediate impression of the facts."[SUP]25[/SUP] The court cited a number of scholarly articles for the proposition that "the sharpest drop in a witness' ability to recall a scene or an event occurs shortly after he witnesses it certainly within a day or two."[SUP]26[/SUP] The court followed up by emphasizing the uniqueness of the contemporaneous statement: "What the psychological evidence suggests, then, is that these eyewitness statements, taken within hours of the accident at issue, are likely to contain information that no deposition could bring out."[SUP]27[/SUP] Hamilton concluded that statements that had not been taken immediately following an accident would be discoverable only upon proof of something more i.e., proof that the witness was unavailable or that the witness' memory was faulty.[SUP]28[/SUP]

The double standard is what standard of proof do you hold the Warren Commission to compared to the standard of proof you hold the following description to?

Douglas Horne November 11, 2014 at 8:45 am
Here is a Post-Script to my earlier response to R.M.
In your final comments, you alleged that Kodak had taken the Z film to NPIC, and said you did not understand why Kodak would do that PRIOR to the film being altered.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the basic story of the 2 NPIC events as recounted in my LewRockwell research paper, and in my book in chapter 14. And therefore, you do not understand the chain of custody of the film that weekend.
KODAK NEVER TOOK THE Z FILM TO ANYBODY. IT WAS THE SECRET SERVICE WHO BROUGHT THE Z FILM TO NPIC (AND DINO BRUGIONI) AT 10 PM ON SATURDAY NIGHT, 11/23/63.
As Dino told me during my interview of him in 2011, the two agents had just gotten off an airplane, and had just come from the airport (presumably National Airport in D.C.), and had not yet seen the film they were delivering to him.
This means, to me, that these two agents had intercepted the Z film in Chicago, and taken it straight to Washington D.C. It had been placed on an airplane (bound for Chicago) in Dallas by Richard Stolley on Saturday afternoon. This explains why the Z film delivered to Dino Brugioni arrived so late at nightit was surely intercepted in Chicago.
But it was certainly not brought to NPIC by Kodak, at any time. I don't know where you came up with that idea. Two Secret Service agents brought the film to NPIC for event # 1 Saturday night; and one Secret Service agent brought the film to NPIC for event # 2 Sunday night. In between those two NPIC events, two Secret Service agents took the film to Hawkeyeworks in Rochester; we know that because the agent that brought a Zapruder film (the altered one) to NPIC for event # 2 said the film he was carrying was developed in Rochester, at Hawkeyeworks, and that he had personally brought it from there to D.C.
The Secret Service contacted John McCone, the CIA Director, on Saturday and told him they wanted NPIC to study a film they would be delivering. McCone contacted Arthur Lundahl, NPIC's Director, and he then contacted Dino Brugioni, who was the duty officer that weekend (and who was also his Chief of Information and the briefing board CZAR). The Secret Service delivered the film to NPIC for event # 1 because they wanted a true depiction of what had really happened on Elm Street.
The purpose of NPIC event # 2 was clearly to produce a series of "sanitized" briefing boards from a "sanitized" Zapruder film. This is why a completely different work crew was utilized by NPIC for event # 2, and why the two work crews were kept in the dark until 2009 about the other event in their building that weekend. A compartmentalized operation was necessary because something was being hiddenand that "something" was the fact that the assassination film had been altered and "sanitized."

You need to re-examine the chain of custody that weekend; when you do you will see that Kodak delivered the film TO NO ONE. Kodak was simply doing what it was told by its government customer. END