07-02-2013, 06:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2013, 07:15 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Let me first state that my questions are sincere and made from a sincere Deep Politics perspective. That provocateur stuff is garbage. Also let me disclaim that I respect and admire Jim DiEugenio as a monster and mind-like-a-steel-trap crusher of Lone Nutters just in case the context wasn't understood. I personally think Jim is spearheading the movement right now and carries the mantle.
However I think some basic things were avoided here. As was the original purpose of this thread, Jim wrote on EF that the Pitzer stuff wasn't credible. The reason I brought this subject up was the basic fact that although getting details wrong might be bad for assassination research there's no doubt that denying serious conspiracy evidence as assassination researchers would be a horrible offense equal to convicting an innocent person. Forgive me if I find Jim a little less than forthcoming on this. The basic point is that Allan has finally come around and admitted that yes, indeed, he believes that Pitzer had possession of films showing frontal wounds that were taken during the pre-autopsy. That's what I was saying and what Jim was denying. This is the issue here and, with all due respect, I don't think Jim has answered it.
I'd also like to point-out that CTKA writer Martin Hay is in the comments section in Horne's book attacking people who suggest what Allan admits. So while Jim and Allan have a nice chat together the objective record shows that there's some serious things that don't connect there that require better answers than the present ignoring that's being done. It's kind of frustrating because Jim himself would never let anyone get away with this stuff. Also, I don't think persons like James Douglass, who wrote about the Dan Marvin story, would receive this kind of crass abuse. Forgive me, but the hypocrisy in that can't go unmentioned.
The basic point here is there's reasonable evidence that Pitzer either filmed or received film from the pre-autopsy and was collecting individual frames to show that the official autopsy did not accurately represent the true wounds. Also, Dennis David allegedly said Pitzer was in the process of using equipment to isolate individual frames from a reel of film, which would suggest Pitzer had either filmed the pre-autopsy or gotten access to a motion picture film of that pre-autopsy. The reason I bring this up is because, as Douglass notes, the Pitzer incident is a quick way to show the public the depth of corruption in the investigation. It's a good one-touch example that shows the nature of the autopsy evidence that should be promoted instead of denied.
Also, what should have been done is a Stone-type movie should have been made of 'The Unspeakable' with an extra updated enhancement of Oswald and his true background - as well as Bernard Haire seeing the CIA double exiting the back of the theater - for the 50th Anniversary. This would be like an update of Stone's 'JFK' just like DiEugenio's update of 'Destiny Betrayed'. While researchers might dwell at the level of high standards this kind of post-ARRB visceral production could be the final straw that pushes the public over the hump.
.
However I think some basic things were avoided here. As was the original purpose of this thread, Jim wrote on EF that the Pitzer stuff wasn't credible. The reason I brought this subject up was the basic fact that although getting details wrong might be bad for assassination research there's no doubt that denying serious conspiracy evidence as assassination researchers would be a horrible offense equal to convicting an innocent person. Forgive me if I find Jim a little less than forthcoming on this. The basic point is that Allan has finally come around and admitted that yes, indeed, he believes that Pitzer had possession of films showing frontal wounds that were taken during the pre-autopsy. That's what I was saying and what Jim was denying. This is the issue here and, with all due respect, I don't think Jim has answered it.
I'd also like to point-out that CTKA writer Martin Hay is in the comments section in Horne's book attacking people who suggest what Allan admits. So while Jim and Allan have a nice chat together the objective record shows that there's some serious things that don't connect there that require better answers than the present ignoring that's being done. It's kind of frustrating because Jim himself would never let anyone get away with this stuff. Also, I don't think persons like James Douglass, who wrote about the Dan Marvin story, would receive this kind of crass abuse. Forgive me, but the hypocrisy in that can't go unmentioned.
The basic point here is there's reasonable evidence that Pitzer either filmed or received film from the pre-autopsy and was collecting individual frames to show that the official autopsy did not accurately represent the true wounds. Also, Dennis David allegedly said Pitzer was in the process of using equipment to isolate individual frames from a reel of film, which would suggest Pitzer had either filmed the pre-autopsy or gotten access to a motion picture film of that pre-autopsy. The reason I bring this up is because, as Douglass notes, the Pitzer incident is a quick way to show the public the depth of corruption in the investigation. It's a good one-touch example that shows the nature of the autopsy evidence that should be promoted instead of denied.
Also, what should have been done is a Stone-type movie should have been made of 'The Unspeakable' with an extra updated enhancement of Oswald and his true background - as well as Bernard Haire seeing the CIA double exiting the back of the theater - for the 50th Anniversary. This would be like an update of Stone's 'JFK' just like DiEugenio's update of 'Destiny Betrayed'. While researchers might dwell at the level of high standards this kind of post-ARRB visceral production could be the final straw that pushes the public over the hump.
.