New COMMANDER W.B.PITZER PAGE WITH FULL FBI FILE

[Jan Klimkowski]

Remote filming equipment makes absolute sense seeing how being in the autopsy room would be a distraction and physical obstruction of the procedure.

Having spent more than 20 years of my life making broadcast television, the notion of using "remote filming equipment" in this context, doesn't make much sense to me.

I've directed highly experienced cameramen filming lots of surgery, including incredibly invasive operations such as surgery to cut out a deep brain tumour and a bone marrow transplant on a child.

The first thing I do is work out, with the agreement of the lead surgeon, a safe working area which will enable the cameraman to get meaningful, largely unblocked shots without interfering with the work of the medical team. This surgeon-director agreement usually means that there will be certain times when the lead surgeon literally stops the procedure to inform the cameraman and director that something crucial is about to happen. This enables the cameraman to shift position to ensure that, firstly, the camera view is unblocked and, secondly, that an appropriate framing and shot size can be selected.

I can assure you that getting clear and focused footage during a surgical procedure is tricky enough with both a camera crew physically in the operating theatre and direct communication & cooperation with the surgical team.

Back in 1963, what kind of rig was controlling the movement and focus of these "remote cameras"?

I'm sure there were very expensive motion control rigs in, for instance, Disney studios, run by specialists for specific motion capture events. But for autopsies and surgery?

What evidence is there for the existence of remote controlled cameras in Bethesda? What were their technical specifications?

Why would remote filming be preferred to a camera crew or stills photographer inside the operating theatre?