07-02-2013, 01:59 AM
Charles Drago Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:So the basic facts stand despite the stubborn resistance. As Allan admits Pitzer most-likely had possession of a film of the pre-autopsy. Dennis David most-likely saw a frontal wound to the temple in this film. Since other photographic evidence from Bethesda was tampered with, and Pitzer's film was not, therefore this is reasonable proof that the plotters were not aware that Pitzer had possession of it. This also makes the unexpected juncture of Pitzer's leaving Bethesda with this film evidence more likely to cause a drastic response in CIA like the one Dan Marvin spoke of. The minor details of the film recording method are irrelevant to the basics of this.
If persons were less interested in bully sport and brow-beating and more interested in pursuit of the facts they would ask is it possible Pitzer filmed the pre-autopsy through the television camera in the autopsy room from the A/V facility? A very reasonable question that does not deserve this unreasonable response.
More classic agent provocateur dissembling from the "Albert Doyle" entity.
A. Reference to "basic facts" that have not been established ("Pitzer's film," the presence of a "television camera in the autopsy room").
B. Demonizing challenges to presentations of non-established basic facts as "stubborn resistance" and "bully sport".
C. Naivete and circular reasoning presented as expertise: Stating without any proof whatsoever that the chimerical "Pitzer's film" was not "tampered with" and then drawing conclusions from these "facts."
D. Attempting to deflect attention from the fatal flaw of "his" analysis by characterizing the most important element of this story -- the chimerical "film's recording method" as a "minor detail."
What makes the methods and agenda of "Albert Doyle" so difficult to recognize as the methods and agenda of an agent provocateur?
I agree about the methodology.
Because Alan mentioned Horne's book and its "pre autopsy" stuff, suddenly we are to forget the whole CCTV fiasco which he would never fess up to or give a source for.
The problem is this: What if you don't buy the Horne-Lifton "pre autopsy" autopsy stuff, with the musical caskets and Kellerman staging a medical examination in advance in record time, and Knudsen shooting a separate set of photos, and O'Donnell seeing those photos--gee whiz, I wonder if the O'Donnell photos from Knudsen are the same as the Pitzer/David ones? Etc etc.
So for anyone to go ahead and build from this base of sand, and then say "Well, the Pitzer story is correct after all" and ignore what Alan said about Pitzer being there being single sourced to a 13 year old kid who is trying to make money off his father's death, I mean, give me a break.
St. John Hunt anyone?
Maybe Judy Baker is next.
The thing is this, who the heck needs Pitzer? What significant advance in the medical evidence does this whole pile of single sourced innudendo do for us? The medical evidence in this case has been taken about as far as it can go. Mantik has proven the x rays were altered. He has advanced a very good case that the x ray film is not an original but a copy. The ARRB and jeremy Gunn got Stringer to admit the photos of Kennedy's brain at NARA are not the photos he took.
The Clark panel raising of the rear skull wound has now given rise to a second Magic Bullet, the likes of which even Larry Sturdivan says is not possible. Through the work of John Nichols and Mantik we know that the back wound did not penetrate all the way through. Gary Aguilar has shown that the HSCA lied about the rear skull wound, 42 people saw this baseball sizes hole in the rear skull. And Mantik's upcoming article will show that the Harper fragment was part of that disappearing hole.
Building on the testimony of Pierre Finck at the Shaw trial, I mean what else does one need to show the autopsy was a joke? You sure don't need the ledgerdemain about Pitzer, when in fact, no one recalls him there that night.
Oh I forgot, there is the 13 year old kind who wants to write a book.