24-10-2015, 04:42 AM
[quote=Tom Scully]
[QUOTE]
Evaluating Eyewitness Identification - Page 92
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]
[/QUOTE]
Seems many of the JFK witnesses qualify under the bolded category. Whether for national security reasons, or because they were threatened with death or their families were threatened.
[quote]
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?
[/QUOTE]
It's mostly the same difference, in the case of the Horne video we're seeing Brugioni's words live and in color, and other than stuff that's been edited "out" it's hard to imagine anyone futzing with the video to alter the sequence of words or the basic description that's being given. In the case of the Warren Commission, the main difference is that there was a body in between the interview and the typewritten transcript, and that body was known to have altered witness transcripts (in other words, they engaged in witness tampering and evidence tampering).
But we should back up to the beginning. The Z-film is a piece of physical evidence. The only reason anyone cares about Brugioni is that it's obvious the physical evidence shows alteration. Even if you don't know what the original looked like at all, you can show clear physical evidence that the public version of the Z-film has been altered, played with, mangled, whatever term you'd like to apply. It's not simple "editing" like a spliced interview might be - although there's that too - but there's abundant evidence of inking and other things you can find "within single frames", you don't even have to look at the sequence, just individual frames.
I told you already Tom, I trust my own lyin' eyes. The purpose of the experts is only to corroborate or discredit my own lyin' eyes. In the case of Brugioni, the only reason I care about him is because it's so obvious the Z-film has been massaged, that the real interesting part becomes "how". And, that's what Brugioni is giving us, is a window into the "how" part.
Do I have any reason to disbelieve Brugioni? No. Why is he coming forward after all these years? Maybe he's not coming forward, maybe no one asked. That's the same thing Bob Barrett said too, about the Tippit wallet. He said "no one ever asked". So... now we're asking. I don't have any reason to disbelieve Bob Barrett either, do you?
[QUOTE]
Evaluating Eyewitness Identification - Page 92
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]
[/QUOTE]
Seems many of the JFK witnesses qualify under the bolded category. Whether for national security reasons, or because they were threatened with death or their families were threatened.
[quote]
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?
[/QUOTE]
It's mostly the same difference, in the case of the Horne video we're seeing Brugioni's words live and in color, and other than stuff that's been edited "out" it's hard to imagine anyone futzing with the video to alter the sequence of words or the basic description that's being given. In the case of the Warren Commission, the main difference is that there was a body in between the interview and the typewritten transcript, and that body was known to have altered witness transcripts (in other words, they engaged in witness tampering and evidence tampering).
But we should back up to the beginning. The Z-film is a piece of physical evidence. The only reason anyone cares about Brugioni is that it's obvious the physical evidence shows alteration. Even if you don't know what the original looked like at all, you can show clear physical evidence that the public version of the Z-film has been altered, played with, mangled, whatever term you'd like to apply. It's not simple "editing" like a spliced interview might be - although there's that too - but there's abundant evidence of inking and other things you can find "within single frames", you don't even have to look at the sequence, just individual frames.
I told you already Tom, I trust my own lyin' eyes. The purpose of the experts is only to corroborate or discredit my own lyin' eyes. In the case of Brugioni, the only reason I care about him is because it's so obvious the Z-film has been massaged, that the real interesting part becomes "how". And, that's what Brugioni is giving us, is a window into the "how" part.
Do I have any reason to disbelieve Brugioni? No. Why is he coming forward after all these years? Maybe he's not coming forward, maybe no one asked. That's the same thing Bob Barrett said too, about the Tippit wallet. He said "no one ever asked". So... now we're asking. I don't have any reason to disbelieve Bob Barrett either, do you?