Marty Hay's Blog!

[Peter Lemkin]

Asking us to "prove" that Pitzer filmed the autopsy is akin to trying to "prove" there was a conspiracy. Those invested in their beliefs will always claim the evidence is suspect. I am shocked that Martin, or anyone else, would not be skeptical of everything that went on at Bethesda during the autopsy, including who was and wasn't "officially" there.

I know this revisionist look at Pitzer's death, which was always included among the mysterious ones Penn Jones and others tabulated so many years ago, was started by Alan Eaglesham. I've exchanged cordial emails with Alan over the years, and have no ax to grind here. But I think this seems to be a personal thing with him, prodded on by his relationship with Dan Marvin.

I think it's still likely that Pitzer was murdered, and Dennis David seems credible to me. Like so many parts of this case, we don't need Pitzer to have been murdered to demonstrate that a lot of witnesses died very conveniently. We also don't need it to prove conspiracy. But there is no reason to reject it out of hand, as too many researchers have done in recent years, with various aspects that once were considered primary indicators of conspiracy. And there certainly isn't "hundreds of times more evidence" that Oswald killed Kennedy.

I think the only responsible way to investigate the JFK Assassination [or other Deep Political events] is to both focus in on a particular person/incident/photo/fact/area of interest AND, at the same time, remember the larger picture which informs us. If there was nothing suspicious that happened at Bethesda, for example, then very rigorous levels of proof would be needed to convince most of foul play; if [as we all know] there were untold levels of hanky-panky at Bethesda, then IMHO the level of the 'bar' to begin to harbor great doubt in the official version of an incident drops dramatically. That said, not everything or everyone was foul play and murdered...but much was and the more we have looked over the years, the more we have found and the consensus on them has grown. Its a balancing act and different people, for a variety of reasons [some good, some not] come at these analyses from different starting points and hoping to find different outcomes. Best is to come at it with an open mind and find only what is to be found, without a prejudice - as much as that is humanly possible. It is not easy - especially in this important and complex case.