03-02-2013, 09:39 PM
After the following outburst I myself wonder about "Doyle"
It's my position that persons who are genuinely seeking the truth on this should be a little more curious and probing than seeking defense lawyer-type deflections. Do you understand the problem with assassination researchers acting like Von Pein's and possibly rejecting very important evidence? Do you understand the significance of those persons being negatively influential in the possible exclusion of Pitzer having prime evidence of the Bethesda cover-up? I think Jim is being a little thin-skinned and defensive. My point wasn't to question him or his reputation, it was simply to point-out he might have missed something serious with Pitzer that his approach doesn't uphold.
Am I hallucinating or did he just compare me with Von Pein? I think he did.
Which is absolute bonkers. The point is Von Pein will not yield ON ANY ISSUE! None. Zero.
Including the SBT and the efficacy of CE 399!
To compare me with that is so off the wall as to really make me wonder if Rago migrated over here.
I give Pitzer the same scrutiny I give, for example, everything in my book. On Spartacus, in talking about Horne, I expressed my disappointment about him going with just one sourcce on a couple of controversial points. I then quoted the famous Sagan dictum: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I did more than give this lip service in my book. For every claim I brought forth , I was sure to have at least two independnet sources. In many cases, I had way more than that. For example, for Shaw as Bertrand, I had over ten. Very diffiuclt to question that many sources.
Now, to ask for example what Pitzer's actual position was at Bethesda, if there was an AV department, if he filmed autopsies before, if anyone saw him there, if his wife backed up his kid--these are all elementary questions. And if we don't ask them, the other side, e.g. Gary Mack and Dave Perry will. Now maybe Doyle/Rago wants another Roscoe White on his hands, or a Madeleine Brown perhaps. Something that Perry and Mack can use for target practice on the 50th to add to their Hall of Infamy. Maybe that is what he is about. But I am not. And asking elementary questions about a story that has been bandied about by other writers who have not done their leg work is not at all unusual. Its simple and its necessary. Why Doyle/Rago fears that first step process and would rather make assumptions with secondary material that he himself can not even back up, this to me is quite bizarre.
Let AD answer Alan's question. Let Alan answer mine. Wherever the chips fall, so be it. That is how you measure evidence and testimony. And truthfulness. If AD's sources are reliable, let him state them. If not, same thing, let him state them.
What is he afraid of? I don't think Alan is afraid of anything. He's done his homework.
It's my position that persons who are genuinely seeking the truth on this should be a little more curious and probing than seeking defense lawyer-type deflections. Do you understand the problem with assassination researchers acting like Von Pein's and possibly rejecting very important evidence? Do you understand the significance of those persons being negatively influential in the possible exclusion of Pitzer having prime evidence of the Bethesda cover-up? I think Jim is being a little thin-skinned and defensive. My point wasn't to question him or his reputation, it was simply to point-out he might have missed something serious with Pitzer that his approach doesn't uphold.
Am I hallucinating or did he just compare me with Von Pein? I think he did.
Which is absolute bonkers. The point is Von Pein will not yield ON ANY ISSUE! None. Zero.
Including the SBT and the efficacy of CE 399!
To compare me with that is so off the wall as to really make me wonder if Rago migrated over here.
I give Pitzer the same scrutiny I give, for example, everything in my book. On Spartacus, in talking about Horne, I expressed my disappointment about him going with just one sourcce on a couple of controversial points. I then quoted the famous Sagan dictum: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I did more than give this lip service in my book. For every claim I brought forth , I was sure to have at least two independnet sources. In many cases, I had way more than that. For example, for Shaw as Bertrand, I had over ten. Very diffiuclt to question that many sources.
Now, to ask for example what Pitzer's actual position was at Bethesda, if there was an AV department, if he filmed autopsies before, if anyone saw him there, if his wife backed up his kid--these are all elementary questions. And if we don't ask them, the other side, e.g. Gary Mack and Dave Perry will. Now maybe Doyle/Rago wants another Roscoe White on his hands, or a Madeleine Brown perhaps. Something that Perry and Mack can use for target practice on the 50th to add to their Hall of Infamy. Maybe that is what he is about. But I am not. And asking elementary questions about a story that has been bandied about by other writers who have not done their leg work is not at all unusual. Its simple and its necessary. Why Doyle/Rago fears that first step process and would rather make assumptions with secondary material that he himself can not even back up, this to me is quite bizarre.
Let AD answer Alan's question. Let Alan answer mine. Wherever the chips fall, so be it. That is how you measure evidence and testimony. And truthfulness. If AD's sources are reliable, let him state them. If not, same thing, let him state them.
What is he afraid of? I don't think Alan is afraid of anything. He's done his homework.