New COMMANDER W.B.PITZER PAGE WITH FULL FBI FILE

[Albert Doyle]

How do you know that William Pitzer had installed remotely controlled video technology in the BNH autopsy room? This aspect is central to your thesis; presumably you are drawing on a reliable source. What is it?

You've already given information that makes that question moot. If your point is to force a very high level of scholarship and vetting of facts I would be the first person to instantly bow to that and yield with extreme cooperation. However you are already admitting that Pitzer very likely handled the film evidence Dennis David spoke of. At that point, what difference does it make how he obtained that film? You seem to suggest that Pitzer may have personally attended the bogus 6:35 pre-autopsy. Perhaps, but if we look at the bigger picture it doesn't seem likely, as Jim himself originally said, because Pitzer wouldn't have lasted that long. If you were more true to the recorded modus operandi of the cover-up they grabbed films in Dealey Plaza instantly. Confiscating Pitzer's film of what was supposed to be a covert, wound-altering pre-autopsy would have been a simple matter of giving an order. All facts considered, I think Jim conspicuously comes up on the wrong side of his own logic. It's good to be strict with sources but some times that method can come up short against the greater facts and evidence. Another thing I should point out is that you suggest other people might have filmed the covert pre-autopsy. However you can't name them or explain why Pitzer would not be in charge of that as his being called-in showed, as well as his handling of the film afterwards. Remote filming equipment makes absolute sense seeing how being in the autopsy room would be a distraction and physical obstruction of the procedure. Lack of evidence of this afterwards also points towards the CIA's goof-up being discreetly disappeared. It's my personal feeling that you are ignoring a rather large elephant in the form of the modus operandi at Bethesda of x-ray altering, photographic evidence altering, brain swaps etc. The fact Pitzer had unadulterated film of frontal shots shows you have a lot of explaining to do vs the recorded pattern of photographic evidence tampering. Or we could jump your hoops and hurdles all day and look away from the obvious.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Remote filming equipment makes absolute sense seeing how being in the autopsy room would be a distraction and physical obstruction of the procedure.

Having spent more than 20 years of my life making broadcast television, the notion of using "remote filming equipment" in this context, doesn't make much sense to me.

I've directed highly experienced cameramen filming lots of surgery, including incredibly invasive operations such as surgery to cut out a deep brain tumour and a bone marrow transplant on a child.

The first thing I do is work out, with the agreement of the lead surgeon, a safe working area which will enable the cameraman to get meaningful, largely unblocked shots without interfering with the work of the medical team. This surgeon-director agreement usually means that there will be certain times when the lead surgeon literally stops the procedure to inform the cameraman and director that something crucial is about to happen. This enables the cameraman to shift position to ensure that, firstly, the camera view is unblocked and, secondly, that an appropriate framing and shot size can be selected.

I can assure you that getting clear and focused footage during a surgical procedure is tricky enough with both a camera crew physically in the operating theatre and direct communication & cooperation with the surgical team.

Back in 1963, what kind of rig was controlling the movement and focus of these "remote cameras"?

I'm sure there were very expensive motion control rigs in, for instance, Disney studios, run by specialists for specific motion capture events. But for autopsies and surgery?

What evidence is there for the existence of remote controlled cameras in Bethesda? What were their technical specifications?

Why would remote filming be preferred to a camera crew or stills photographer inside the operating theatre?

[Jim DiEugenio]

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.

[Charles Drago]

After the following outburst I myself wonder about "Doyle"

Am I hallucinating or did he just compare me with Von Pein? I think he did.

To compare me with that is so off the wall as to really make me wonder if Rago migrated over here.

Precisely, Jim.

For more than a year I struggled to break through "Doyle's" illogic -- until it finally dawned on me that it was all part of the charade.

Now, in my informed opinion, the "Doyle" entity and "his" willing correspondents/fellow constructs have taken to engaging in totally contrived forum "conversations" in which they develop arguments based on false premises and in the process -- here's the important part -- attempt to conflate their own intentionally twisted "history" with the hard-won facts and corrections of the faux record contributed by the best of us.

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?

Here's the bottom line, Jim: There is no "AD" here. "Albert Doyle" may never have existed. Or there may be a real Doyle and the "Doyle" identity working in concert.

The "Doyle" provocation works only if we continue to act as if it doesn't exist.

"Doyle" has no intention of answering Allan's questions. "His" goal merely is to keep the questions coming.

Bottom line: A potentially valuable discussion of the Pitzer matter has been hijacked by "Doyle."

But speaking only for myself, I cannot in good conscience allow the "Doyle" perfidy to go unaddressed. To "ignore" "Doyle," as at least one of my dear friends and DPF co-owners honorably but tragically recommends, is to cede to the fox full access to the hen house.

And this I cannot and will not do.

Thank you, Jim, for at least giving serious consideration to the "Doyle" hypothesis as Greg Burnham, Phil Dragoo, and I have submitted it.

[Allan Eaglesham]

This is incredible.

The guy will not answer a simple question.

But I have some questions for Alan:

From your replies to AD, which I very much appreciate, I get the feeling that 1.)Pitzer did not have access to film equipment, and 2.) Was not head of the AV department, and 3.) did not "film" autopsies.

Could you answer those questions since, as I said, a lot of confusion and obfuscation has been built around Pitzer.

Also, just what was his title at the time and did he have a formal function at Bethesda?

Also, how old was his son at the time of the assassination? And is the story about him being called into Bethesda single sourced to the son? That is did the wife ever back this up and did anyone see him at Bethesda that night, or is there a record of him being there that night?

Jim-

Addressing your questions:

>From your replies to AD, which I very much appreciate, I get the feeling that 1.)Pitzer did not have access to film equipment,<

Pitzer's office was adjacent to a television studio in Building 144. It is highly likely that he had access to film equipment.

>2.) ...was not head of the AV department,<

A November 2, 1966, article in the Washington Post on Pitzer's death states that he was assistant head of the Graphic Art Department and chief of the Educational Television Division at the Naval Medical Hospital. The position that he intended to accept, on retirement, at the local community college was in educational television.

>3.) did not "film" autopsies.<

I traced two men who worked in television with Pitzer. Neither Mr. "A" nor Mr. "B" had any knowledge of a role played by William Pitzer in the autopsy on President Kennedy's body. And neither had any knowledge of a CCTV system permanently installed in the autopsy room at the BNH in 1963. Most of the CCTV feeds at the National Naval Medical Center went out from the television studio in Building 144 (where LCDR Pitzer's body was found); but feeds were generated at other locations within the hospital. Mr. A had no recollection of feeds from the autopsy room. Mr. B recalled CCTV generation from the autopsy room on a regular basis, not of autopsies however; the autopsy room was used for routine teaching purposes. This is consistent with CDR Humes' statement to the ARRB:
[The autopsy room] would accommodate maybe 20 or 30 people, because we used to have conferences in there. Routinely, at the end of each week, we would retain the organs from the autopsies of that week. In fact, not only did we review them there, there was a closed-circuit television. They went to Andrews Air Force Base, NIH, and it was a closed-circuit instruction program. Mr. B told me that for CCTV feeds from the autopsy room to elsewhere in the hospital and beyond, "we wheeled in a television camera."


>Also, just what was his title at the time and did he have a formal function at Bethesda?<

See above for his title. In 1963 he held the rank of lieutenant. He was promoted to lieutenant commander in late 1965 or early 1966 (I'd need to search my files to be sure). However, I know for certain that he held the rank of lieutenant in August of 1965 when Dan Marvin claimed he was solicited by the CIA to terminate Pitzer. One of the few aspects of Marvin's story that remained constant through the years was that the CIA operative invited him to kill "lieutenant commander" Pitzer. Odd, since Pitzer was a lieutenant at the time.

>Also, how old was his son at the time of the assassination?<

13.

>And is the story about him being called into Bethesda single sourced to the son?<

Only the son made the claim. I spent many hours on the phone with this man. His major objective was to exploit his father's death for financial gain.

>That is did the wife ever back this up and did anyone see him at Bethesda that night, or is there a record of him being there that night?<

As far as I am aware, the answers are "no" and "no." I made attempts to contact Pitzer's older son and Pitzer's brother with the objective of asking questions like this, without success; they failed to communcate. One attempt to communicate with Mrs. Pitzer was unsuccessful; I did not want to disturb an old lady further.

For the sake of full disclosure, Jerrol Custer claimed to have seen Pitzer in the autopsy room. He told Walt Brown that Pitzer was there with a still camera,

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/custer~1.htm

and told William Law that Pitzer was there with a movie camera (In the Eye of History, page 116). But see the footnote on that page and his comment on page 117; he told Law that Pitzer could not have shot himself because his right hand was congenitally deformed, which was rubbish. Mr. Custer comes off as less than truthful here.

Allan

[Jim Hackett II]

Quoting Mr. Charle Drago:

"But speaking only for myself, I cannot in good conscience allow the "Doyle" perfidy to go unaddressed. To "ignore" "Doyle," as at least one of my dear friends and DPF co-owners honorably but tragically recommends, is to cede to the fox full access to the hen house.

And this I cannot and will not do.

Thank you, Jim, for at least giving serious consideration to the "Doyle" hypothesis as Greg Burnham, Phil Dragoo, and I have submitted it."

====================================================================

I agree with your view of AD et. al.

I ignore the fool to deny any reaction to unending BS. At least then AD must bring his own replying poster to the thread. And only more meaningless disruption away from meaningful exchange and to disrupt common ground in the community is the fruit by which we can judge the "persons".

It is an ancient tactic of trolls to only have questions not answers or opinions that would here have to be defended and stated without agenda. Any agenda except advancing this community.

I have read way too many words of AD and the imitators here and elsewhere. Always questions of others - well meaning researchers - never anything but BS.

Mr. Drago said it before "Whatever these guys are getting paid it is too much".

Constantly quoting my posts and asking a query was a wasted effort because I had read enough of that junk to know and read the signs. The entity AD and friends were trying to provoke a reply from me. Too bad I knew that game from a decade ago. I was NOT THE DANCE PARTNER AD SOUGHT.

Too Bad, Too Sad for AD et. al.
It is enough for the moment to know the enemy.
If I operated DPF ...... oh you have my drift of thought by now.

Jim

[Allan Eaglesham]

How do you know that William Pitzer had installed remotely controlled video technology in the BNH autopsy room? This aspect is central to your thesis; presumably you are drawing on a reliable source. What is it?

You've already given information that makes that question moot. If your point is to force a very high level of scholarship and vetting of facts I would be the first person to instantly bow to that and yield with extreme cooperation. However you are already admitting that Pitzer very likely handled the film evidence Dennis David spoke of. At that point, what difference does it make how he obtained that film? You seem to suggest that Pitzer may have personally attended the bogus 6:35 pre-autopsy. Perhaps, but if we look at the bigger picture it doesn't seem likely, as Jim himself originally said, because Pitzer wouldn't have lasted that long. If you were more true to the recorded modus operandi of the cover-up they grabbed films in Dealey Plaza instantly. Confiscating Pitzer's film of what was supposed to be a covert, wound-altering pre-autopsy would have been a simple matter of giving an order. All facts considered, I think Jim conspicuously comes up on the wrong side of his own logic. It's good to be strict with sources but some times that method can come up short against the greater facts and evidence. Another thing I should point out is that you suggest other people might have filmed the covert pre-autopsy. However you can't name them or explain why Pitzer would not be in charge of that as his being called-in showed, as well as his handling of the film afterwards. Remote filming equipment makes absolute sense seeing how being in the autopsy room would be a distraction and physical obstruction of the procedure. Lack of evidence of this afterwards also points towards the CIA's goof-up being discreetly disappeared. It's my personal feeling that you are ignoring a rather large elephant in the form of the modus operandi at Bethesda of x-ray altering, photographic evidence altering, brain swaps etc. The fact Pitzer had unadulterated film of frontal shots shows you have a lot of explaining to do vs the recorded pattern of photographic evidence tampering. Or we could jump your hoops and hurdles all day and look away from the obvious.

Mr. "Doyle":

You put words in my mouth and finesse my simple question.

As far as you are concerned, this is a case of "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."

So be it.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Alan:

Thanks so much for those replies.

I appreciate someone who really does that kind of groundwork.

I have always been one who thinks that in a real life investigation facts are like sunshine. Some people in this community like groping around in darkness.

Then they suddenly get sucker punched by the likes of Dave Perry. Then they blame Perry. When it was they who led with their chin.

[Allan Eaglesham]

Jim:

Thank you.

Allan

[Albert Doyle]

Remote filming equipment makes absolute sense seeing how being in the autopsy room would be a distraction and physical obstruction of the procedure.

Having spent more than 20 years of my life making broadcast television, the notion of using "remote filming equipment" in this context, doesn't make much sense to me.

Jan, I believe Alan just confirmed below that Bethesda had a Closed Circuit Television recording system in the autopsy room that the people Alan spoke to confirmed was used to record autopsies.