CTKA Reviews Absolute Proof

[Jim DiEugenio]

http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/groden_book.html

All in all, a decidedly mixed bag of goodies.

Many valuable things, and also some things that are decidedly not so valuable: the McCone Rowley document

In deference to Robert, I measured the review on the side of kindness.

[Albert Doyle]

I know what I'll be reading tonight.


No reviews for Groden's book on Amazon yet:



http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Absolute-Proof...lute+Proof

[Albert Doyle]

As much I respect DiEugenio and his position as a foremost authority on the Assassination I think he should be called on this:

Groden also says that Lt. Commander Bruce Pitzer filmed the entire autopsy on 16 mm black and white film. He was working on an edit when he was murdered in his office on October 29, 1966. He then adds that "the murderer stole the film and it hasn't been seen since." (ibid, p. 301) It took Pitzer three years to edit an autopsy film? But beyond that, the men Groden relies upon for this version of the Pitzer story, Dan Marvin and Dennis David, have some credibility problems. No one has done more work on the Pitzer case than the estimable Allan Eaglesham. And his final essay on the subject reveals the problems with the testimony of these two men.

I've read Eaglesham and don't find his overly-critical, subjective arguments convincing, or even sound. Martin Hay basically argues the Eaglesham perspective. When I debated with Hay he concluded I had a "hard-on for him" as his summation. Hay refuses to answer some basic questions about Pitzer. His devil's advocate position is no different than Greg Parker's recent efforts. I think it is a major mistake to discredit the CIA murder of Pitzer, its reasons, evidence, and motive. I just can't figure out why DiEugenio, such a firm source on the assassination, would come up against the Pitzer hit and accept such dismissive reasoning that he is normally pretty good at detecting? The Pitzer assassination should be obvious for what it is, that is the murder of someone who had serious film evidence against the Bethesda plotters. And I'm not sure why anyone would call Dennis David uncredible? How smart is it to play hardball on lack of evidence when that evidence was intentionally erased by those who murdered Pitzer? By the way Hay is a regular conversant friend of Amazon comments section Lone Nutter Patrick Collins and communicates privately with him in England. I mean what does it take to question those who attack Pitzer? Friendly relations with Paul May or McAdams? What is going on here? It's one thing to demand well-researched and documented evidence but it's another to deny some of the worst cases of victimization in the assassination.

[Martin White]

http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/groden_book.html

All in all, a decidedly mixed bag of goodies.

Many valuable things, and also some things that are decidedly not so valuable: the McCone Rowley document

In deference to Robert, I measured the review on the side of kindness.

I'd say that is a very fair and balanced review, Jim.

[Dawn Meredith]

As much I respect DiEugenio and his position as a foremost authority on the Assassination I think he should be called on this:

Groden also says that Lt. Commander Bruce Pitzer filmed the entire autopsy on 16 mm black and white film. He was working on an edit when he was murdered in his office on October 29, 1966. He then adds that "the murderer stole the film and it hasn't been seen since." (ibid, p. 301) It took Pitzer three years to edit an autopsy film? But beyond that, the men Groden relies upon for this version of the Pitzer story, Dan Marvin and Dennis David, have some credibility problems. No one has done more work on the Pitzer case than the estimable Allan Eaglesham. And his final essay on the subject reveals the problems with the testimony of these two men.

I've read Eaglesham and don't find his overly-critical, subjective arguments convincing, or even sound. Martin Hay basically argues the Eaglesham perspective. When I debated with Hay he concluded I had a "hard-on for him" as his summation. Hay refuses to answer some basic questions about Pitzer. His devil's advocate position is no different than Greg Parker's recent efforts. I think it is a major mistake to discredit the CIA murder of Pitzer, its reasons, evidence, and motive. I just can't figure out why DiEugenio, such a firm source on the assassination, would come up against the Pitzer hit and accept such dismissive reasoning that he is normally pretty good at detecting? The Pitzer assassination should be obvious for what it is, that is the murder of someone who had serious film evidence against the Bethesda plotters. And I'm not sure why anyone would call Dennis David uncredible? How smart is it to play hardball on lack of evidence when that evidence was intentionally erased by those who murdered Pitzer? By the way Hay is a regular conversant friend of Amazon comments section Lone Nutter Patrick Collins and communicates privately with him in England. I mean what does it take to question those who attack Pitzer? Friendly relations with Paul May or McAdams? What is going on here? It's one thing to demand well-researched and documented evidence but it's another to deny some of the worst cases of victimization in the assassination.

I agree completely with Albert here. I read Eaglesham's attack on this story many years ago and found it full of holes. We had some argumentative emails at the time, but I decided we just needed to agree to disagree. I respect Jim D and consider him a friend but we also disagree on several things. This is just one more.
But we agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on.
Pitzer did not commit suicide. IMHO.

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

I wonder how Dennis David would do on the Voice Stress Analyzer? He seems pretty straightforward and confident in this video. He never drops his eyes and his voice is strong and never flinches or pauses.

David says he saw a 16mm film on the film analyzer in Pitzer's office. He said he saw a clear entry bullet hole in the temple area and a slide of the infamous rear exit wound.

The only way Pitzer could have captured this is if he filmed the covert pre-autopsy where those wounds were altered:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joUlOR7fX98