Assertions, Feelings, and Evidence

Tue 15 Apr 2014, 3:55 pm

In the decades since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, some have asserted that multiple versions of important evidence exist. While this is possible in certain instances, serious questions remain without presented evidence and the ability for critical public review. Greg Burnham and James Fetzer discuss at length the asserted existence of an alternate film of the Kennedy assassination. Burnham claims to have viewed the "Other" film and believes it constitutes additional support for conspiracy.

"...sometimes it is beneficial for someone to reach their own independent conclusions....If your able to do that, sometimes it has an extremely strong effect on its own merit, then you don't necessarily need corroborating things. It wouldn't hurt if you had them but you don't necessarily need them." (Greg Burnham) i.

I disagree. Reaching an independent conclusion based on the majority of primary evidence is the most credible standard. Corroboration of evidence and unbiased research is essential. Creating a hypothesis to serve without substantial evidence is not beneficial. It is speculation.
Multiple sources allow us to refine what a claim is by comparison. To disregard reasonable standards of inquiry does "hurt" any serious attempt at reaching a consistent idea regarding these events. In cases of alteration, suppression, and feasible mischaracterization, some official evidence supports conspiracy. To support or dispute the official record demands we must examine its contents.

"The people who criticize, you know, folks who scrutinize this film (the Zapruder film) tend to look at some of these things and say, Well your making something out of nothing, you're going on your gut, or you're going on your feeling. Well I will tell you what; I have never seen a film that feels like that when you're watching it...My impression was they were cutting out parts to make it less brutal, maybe they did some editing because they were planning on showing it on television more often...In fact, people who realize without any doubt in their minds there was a conspiracy to assassinate the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy in broad daylight. Those people who agree with that, still have a reluctance to really look at the evidence on the Zapruder film alteration side of this. Their argument is that in many ways has been evidence that has been used to poke a lot of holes in the official story. Because it apparently shows, that there appears to be anyway a shot that originated somewhere from the front. You know there is a lot of problems with that kind of reasoning, because the same film was also used by the Warren Commission to say that a lone gunman had did it from behind...Under the circumstances and conditions, that I am not going to go into, that I was viewing this film, and I will also say it was not just one single viewing, it was several viewings, over several occasions over a number of years....." (Greg Burnham)

If someone has not gathered independent expert analysis, nor can provide substantial corroborating evidence, their critique is not fact, nor evidence. It is a hypothesis. Burnham states a problem of critics is they claim, "...you're going on your gut, you're going on feeling. Well I will tell you what; I have never seen a film that feels like that when you're watching it." Thus, some of Burnham's critics were correct that impressions not evidence are insufficient.

I do not doubt Mr. Burnham has reviewed various films in his research. He claims to have viewed an extended film of the assassination possibly taken by an unknown camera operator. Yet he will not describe in detail the circumstances regarding his viewing, or the source providing it. He additionally cannot produce this film or substantial evidence to support its existence. We have nothing for comparison to verify it. We have merely his interpretation of the asserted film.
Burnham states, "My impression was they were cutting out parts to make it less brutal, maybe they did some editing because they were planning on showing it on television more often." It is possible nefarious intent altered similar films, yet without evidentiary corroboration, it is highly improbable. Please note his "impression" is a vital part of his claim.

Akin to the previous suppression of opposing views, Burnham is dismissive of the Zapruder film because the President's Commission used it as supporting evidence. He chides fellow advocates for not dismissing the publically available film to accept his impressions of the asserted one. Burnham's idea does not allow inspection and use of evidence because of his assumptions. However, what primary evidence could someone use when applying this style of inquiry? Repeated proven contending evidence exists within the official record. Yet all this would be unavailable if someone allowed feasible bias to serve as fact.

"At the time, I did not realize the details would be so important (the details of the "Other" film) in terms of comparing to the extant (Zapruder) film. So of what I am going to tell you will be impressions, and some of what I tell you, I am going to call facts. In other words in the sense, now this I'm not doubtful about at all. A couple of things here, this is my best recollection, I'm not as certain of it...Initially as that car made the wide turn (the Presidential limousine), there may have been a stop around the corner of Houston and Elm, if this was not quite such an important thing, I would say yeah it stopped. My best recollection is the truth is I'm not positive, it just really slowed down, it came practically to a rolling stop..." (Greg Burnham)

Mr. Burnham states his impressions will be referred to as "facts". These are founded upon his lack of doubt. These ideas are based upon his "best recollection". Thus, these are not facts. These memories are Burnham's collected impressions of a past film he asserts to have reviewed over the years. While some may regard his impressions as valuable, unless the evidence is available for public review it remains unproven. Evidence must also enjoy authentication by experts, and be subject to reasonable criticism.

"When I say in my opinion there is some Secret Service complicity in this, I am not implicating every member of the Secret Service, or even the Presidential detail that was there that day. I really don't know what happened but something broke down drastically and there is a tremendous amount of evidence, that at least some of it was not incidental or accidental by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just not willing to throw any individual agents were there under the bus because I really simply don't know, you know what happened. But I do know the car stopped, I do know that was when the head shot occurred, then it speed off..." (Greg Burnham)

I appreciate that Burnham concerning this matter states: "I'm just not willing to throw any individual agents were there under the bus because I really simply don't know..." To demonstrate feasible Secret Service complicity requires substantial evidence. Burnham asserts a "tremendous" amount of evidence exists to support Secret Service complicity without offering a single verified instance. Burnham does not offer the primary evidence that demonstrates agents repeatedly broke protocol, slept little, and some were drinking. ii.

These proven actions support the deeply flawed security measures without nefarious speculations. It is possible a high-ranking Secret Service agent was complicit. Yet without the offering the supporting evidence necessary it remains a hypothesis. To assume Secret Service complicity without offering evidence is not sufficient.

"...The bottom line for all of this is Oswald did not kill JFK alone. There are so many indications of it and so many different ways. Additionally the cover-up is also a conspiracy, this one indication of that conspiracy to cover up....(The Presidential Limousine) whether it stops for 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 4 seconds, the extant Zapruder film shows no stop at all. And that is definitely evidence... (Greg Burnham)

"There are good reasons to doubt Oswald was even a shooter, because we have multiple reports of his co workers down around the lunchroom....as late as 12:25 pm." (James Fetzer)

"Yeah, like I said there are scores of things.....back to the Zapruder film, just the issues of blur and non blur, for most people you look at that go this is kind of common sense, you don't have to be a physicist to get that...I'm an amateur photographer at best... (Regarding the blur) ...these things are really elementary..." (Greg Burnham)

I agree there are many pieces of evidence to support a feasible conspiracy. An impression about a mysterious tape that is beyond expert verification does not qualify. Neither does Fetzer's placement of Oswald agree with some contending witness placement of Oswald. I would suggest more elementary is utilizing the official record to prove official inconsistencies. While independent verified evidence and review is important, when the official record supports feasible conspiracy it possesses greater credibility.

For instance, instead of Fetzer's claim based on contended testimony, perhaps Oswald's proficiency and the weapon in question are worth greater consideration. Perhaps the sole instance of experts to recreate the shots can reveal verifiable distinctions. Feasible deficiencies of the weapon, the unpracticed gunman, and only a single expert being able to recreate all the shots once, are more substantial. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. The President's (Warren) Commission itself provided this evidence.

We should consider all the evidence, and this requires considering official evidence. Has Burnham consulted multiple experts? Does anyone possess a copy of this "Other" film for public review? Why should anyone regard his claim of this alternate film containing what he determines to be "fact" without tangible proof? Evidence cannot be authenticated sight unseen.

To demand this would resemble another tactic employed some advocates and officials to dismiss reasonable criticism as nefarious or ignorant. If we cannot review evidence, it cannot reasonably be conclusively supported or debunked. It can never be subject to public review but speculation. Thus, it remains incorrect to claim this asserted film is evidence without actual proof of its existence.

Sincerely,
C. A. A. Savastano

i. Jim Fetzer interviews Greg Burnham Regarding the "Other" Film of the Kennedy Assassination, Real Deal Podcast, Community Audio, archive.org
ii. Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume V, Testimony of James J. Rowley and Robert Carswell, (June 18, 1964), pp. 451, 454, 458, 459
iii. Hearings of the President's Com., Volume XXVI, Commission Exhibit 2974, p. 455
iv. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Volume XXV, Commission Exhibit 2559, pp. 797-98
v. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter 4, the Assassin, Oswald's rifle practice outside the Marines, p. 192
vi. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter 4 the Assassin, Ownership and Possession of Assassination Weapon, p. 125
vii. Hearings of the President's Com., Volume III, Testimony of Ronald Simmons, p. 451

If you wish to hear more of Greg Burnham and Jim Fetzer's ideas see: archive.org

Tue 15 Apr 2014, 10:39 pm

Nicely done, Carmine.

I have heard people mention not using Z because it was used to bolster the WC case. Actually the film could go either way depending on interpretation. Personally, I see evidence of a frontal shot and not just a muscular reaction to the rear.

The WC also used the second floor encounter as part of their case even though most conspiracosts claim it actually proves Oswald could not get there in the time required. But the WC clung to it because it, like the Z film, allows a little doubt for their side.

The SBT is also used by the WC and I see no reason that we cannot utilize it as well to show the case is a mockery.

If Burnham is implying that we cannot use any evidence simply because the WC used it, we can have no case.

As you so adroitly point out, it is the evidence they have used that proves the case against them.

Wed 16 Apr 2014, 11:32 am

Thanks, Terlin. I'm glad you enjoyed the read.

Thu 17 Apr 2014, 5:23 pm

This is bit off topic and just came across it
The blame must be laid not so much on the Secret Service agents as on their chiefs, and on the White House assistant responsible for the President's security. We have cited only their most glaring errors, but there were others -- less important perhaps, but characteristic of their lack of discipline, such as their drinking on duty. (11) Abraham Bolden, the only Negro in the Presidential bodyguard, asked to testify before the Warren Commission on the subject of some of these accusations, but the Committee refused to hear him. Later, he was fired from the Secret Service on grounds of professional incompetence.(12) The Secret Service was guilty of negligence, as the highly respected Wall Street Journal commented. But its agents were professionals, and they recognized the work of other professionals. They were the first in the President's entourage to realize that the assassination was a well organized plot. They discussed it among themselves at Parkland Hospital and later during the plane ride back to Washington. They mentioned it in their personal reports to Secret Service Chief James Rowley that night. Ten hours after the assassination, Rowley knew that there had been three gunmen, and perhaps four, at Dallas that day, and later on the telephone Jerry Behn remarked to Forrest Sorrels (head of the Dallas Secret Service), "It's a plot." "Of course," was Sorrel's reply. Robert Kennedy, who had already interrogated Kellerman, learned that evening from Rowley that the Secret Service believed the President had been the victim of a powerful organization. President Kennedy was dead, but the Secret Service was never officially inculpated. There were several staff changes in the White House detail, but two agents, Youngblood and Hill, were decorated. Because it reinforced its thesis, the Warren Commission blamed the Presidential guards, but a soldier is worth no more than his commanding officer, and the heads of the Secret Service were not worth much. - See more at: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread777807/pg#sthash.6q9KxCx4.dpuf

Assertions, Feelings, and Evidence

Assertions, Feelings, and Evidence

Re: Assertions, Feelings, and Evidence

Re: Assertions, Feelings, and Evidence

Re: Assertions, Feelings, and Evidence

Re: Assertions, Feelings, and Evidence