08-02-2013, 02:13 AM
Allan:
What I meant by that is this: You place a lot more faith in Horne's work than I do.
I read every word of the series and made copious notes. For the most part, its apparent that Horne did not prove his more extravagant claims. Therefore I do not buy the whole pre autopsy scenario.
ANd since you show that 1.) No one was taking a film of the autopsy from the room, and 2.) The so called CCTV idea is very unlikely--according to Jan, pretty much not possible--then I do not think this idea about the so called Pitzer film is credible. (And I am really beginning to doubt the credibility of Dennis David en toto.) I mean what is the proof Pitzer was there that night anyway? You cannot single source something like that.
Further, Horne's so called Boyaijian Report looks now to be pretty much a mirage also. Harry Livingstone has asked some very cogent questions about it.
Therefore, IMO, the Pitzer myth is a cul de sac.
And who needs it today? The medical evidence has been torn asunder nine ways to Sunday.
What I meant by that is this: You place a lot more faith in Horne's work than I do.
I read every word of the series and made copious notes. For the most part, its apparent that Horne did not prove his more extravagant claims. Therefore I do not buy the whole pre autopsy scenario.
ANd since you show that 1.) No one was taking a film of the autopsy from the room, and 2.) The so called CCTV idea is very unlikely--according to Jan, pretty much not possible--then I do not think this idea about the so called Pitzer film is credible. (And I am really beginning to doubt the credibility of Dennis David en toto.) I mean what is the proof Pitzer was there that night anyway? You cannot single source something like that.
Further, Horne's so called Boyaijian Report looks now to be pretty much a mirage also. Harry Livingstone has asked some very cogent questions about it.
Therefore, IMO, the Pitzer myth is a cul de sac.
And who needs it today? The medical evidence has been torn asunder nine ways to Sunday.