06-02-2013, 01:32 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013, 08:20 PM by Charles Drago.)
Gordon Smith's special effects for Oliver Stone's JFK included life-size mannequins of the murdered president's body at autopsy.
I've attached images of Smith's work not because they have any evidentiary value, but rather to illustrate how one artist's vision comes far closer than the official photographic record to depicting what many of us conclude was the body's condition at the official Bethesda autopsy.
There are people in this community who actually do legwork, who make phone calls, who interview people to get back to original sources.
Alan has done that in this case. Many others, like Doyle--or whatever his name is, it may be Rago-- do not. They just parrot whatever they read in books. This is one of the worst aspects of the JFK Case. If I had bought into everything the vaunted research community had written about Garrison, I would have never written my books or published Probe. I decided these people were wrong and had not done any real ground work. So I did the work they did not. Thank God I did.
So when Alan speaks on this issue I know its from personal experience, and I listen to what he says.
And also await an answer to his question.
I hold your works in quite high esteem. I find "The Assassinations" that you co-authored with Ms. Lisa Pease to be one of the best 'primers' to Deep Politics and Black Ops to ease someone into deeper materials. Probe I include and I want to get the CD you all are selling of Probe Issues.
I commend that idea highly. I rarely miss Block Op Radio too.
I also hold the opinion of the 'legend' Albert Doyle and all his companions that Greg, Charles, Phil and yourself do. It is a waste of breath to bother discussing anything with the enemy.
All that being said, I fear a part of the quote above could be taken as something I am sure you had no intention of saying or even implying, not that you did imply anything but the wrong impression may be conveyed to someone.
I am a retired but interested researcher. While I do have a cheap VIOP phone, by nature and being of the Midwest culture, I rarely contact other researchers or witnesses by more direct means than community gatherings like this and reading the product of their work.
Akin to noting the laundry on the clothesline of a neighbor but never spreading gossip about anything, just know and go on about your own life. That is the old fashioned value that I was born and raised into and I still hold. Sometimes I forget and let a blast out to others about Pose-ner and Mack and DVP too. The Enemy deserves it but that doesn't make it right.
I do exercise my own critical thinking to evaluate the work of others. While I may well keep my view to myself particularly if the view is negative, it only took about 10 minutes on my very first visit to Paul McAdams Nolan's web site to know it was junk. The same for my own opinion of some books, first to mind is Waldron's sh*t. I knew in a few pages and a scan of the index I wasn't gonna give up my money for trash like that, I did NOT buy it and haven't read but enough to conclude not to endorse that kind of junk by buying it. Not even at half price.
Maybe it is akin to the internal "moral compass" that Greg mentioned a while back? In internal BS trigger in the mind?
I rely on the researchers that do the "leg-work" to form valid opinions. I too have been known to do some leg-work too for myself. Not lately and not much compared to others here. It is a money deal mostly and an inclination of personality. I know many other researchers that also rely on the good work of others.
Thanks for doing some of the best work for we the other non-leg-working researchers to rely on.
I hope I communicated this properly.
Your inclusion of the work of Gordon Smith in reconstructing the terrible destruction to the president viewed by those in Parkland and at Bethesda offers a key look at the incised right temple/hairline where many posit the entry wound occurred.
In addition the rear exit wound is in full explosion showing the lack of any cerebrum or cerebellum on the right as described by several.
Mortician Thom Robinson filled the small hole with "a little wax" and Dr. David Mantik found the lateral x-ray so fraudulent he believed Area P was a light-blasted forgery.
Jerrol Custer told Jeremy Gunn counsel for the ARRB and Douglas Horne the medical document chief he believed a C-3/4 x-ray was missing because it showed metal fragments, which would explain what happened to the entry wound described by Malcolm Perry.
Sherry Fiester uses trajectory analysis, backspatter analysis, and head wound behavior studies to posit a shot from the south knoll/overpass area excluding Oswald.
No one can read Jim DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed second edition and not recognize the massive, unprecedented CIA/FBI sabotage of the Garrison case due to the danger of his exposing the Shaw-Banister-Ferrie-Arcacha Smith linkage--though we know in these times nothing should be believed until it has been officially denied.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4314[/ATTACH]
[FONT=&]Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board, Volume II, Chapter Five: The Autopsy X-Rays, pages 530-2:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer Examines the X-Rays of the Body[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The noteworthy highlights of Custer's review of the x-rays of the body was Jeremy's attempt to see whether Custer could identify metal fragments near any of the cervical vertebrae, which Custer had mentioned earlier in the deposition.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Jeremy showed Custer x-ray no. 9, a view of the chest prior to removal of the lungs, and the exchange went as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Previously, you referred to there being metal fragments in the cervical area. Are you able to identify any metal fragments in this x-ray?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Not in this film.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Does this film include a view or an exposure that would have included such metal fragments?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Where would the metal fragments be located?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Further up in there. This region.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Can youand you're pointing to?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Up into the, I'd say, C3/C4 region.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Jeremy asked Custer to review x-rays no. 8 and 10, of the right shoulder and chest, and left shoulder and chest, respectivelyboth are images following the removal of the heart and lungs. Custer could not identify metal fragments in either x-ray.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Later, Jeremy asked Custer the following questions:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Now, you had raised, previously in the deposition. . .the possibility of some metal fragments in the C3/C4 range.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: I noticed I didn't see that.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: You didn't see any x-rays that would be inthat would include the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Are you certain that you took x-rays that included theincluded C3 and C4?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Yes, sir. Absolutely.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: How many x-rays did you take that would have included that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Just one. And that was all that was necessary, because it showedright there.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: And what, as best you recall, did it show?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: A fragmentation of a shell in and around that circular exitthat area. Let me rephrase that. I don't want to say "exit," because I don't know whether it was exit or entrance. But all I can say, there was bullet fragmentations [sic] around that areathat opening.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Around C3/C4?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Right.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn" And do you recall how many fragments there were?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Not really. There was enough. It was very prevalent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Did anyone make any observations about metal fragments in the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: I did. And I was told to mind my own business. That's where I was shut down again.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: You have, during the course of this deposition, identified three x-rays that you are quite certain that you took, but don't appear in this collection. Are there any others that you can identify as not being included?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: That's the only three that come to my mind right now; the two tangential views, and the A-P cervical spine.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Okay.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Can I add something to that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Sure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: In my own opinion, I do believe, basically, the reason why they are not here is because they showed massive amounts of bullet fragments.[/FONT]
Allan Eaglesham Wrote:When Doug Horne provided evidence that the pre-autopsy was done at Bethesda, this raised a more likely scenario: William Pitzer or a colleague (possibly Stringer) filmed the pre-autopsy.
Thanks. That's what I was saying. If I got a few details wrong I apologize, but my point was basically the same. While being accused of unnecessarily prolonging the discussion I think Allan could have prevented that by simply making this correction to a fellow student of the assassination right away. But I guess the rule is never make a simple friendly correction when you can whip somebody around the board instead. Hey, I appreciate the help. So, when we get to the point, as we have here, I was right and most evidence shows Pitzer filmed the pre-autopsy as Allan agrees. Thanks. It shouldn't have taken several pages of gratuitous abuse to get to this point. But this isn't being handled honestly. Anyone objectively viewing this would know that Allan has made posts in the past that seriously question Pitzer's murder and Dennis David's story. Also, while satisfying themselves with victory without ever answering the points no one seems to worry that the original issue of this topic was DiEugenio doubting the Pitzer story. So while these people are satisfied they have destroyed an "enemy" (which is ridiculous) they are leaving right out in the open the fact Allan is showing something that refutes Jim. While I'm impressed with the level of academic scrutiny assumed by these posts I'm forced to mention that the main point still hasn't been answered. My original post pointed-out that Jim scoffs at the Pitzer issue yet there you have Allan basically agreeing with it. I find the lack of honest admission of this unflattering to those involved. But hey, when you can simply accuse somebody of being a psy-ops enemy and ignore the conflicts, heck why bother to admit your flaws? Right? I find the lack of forthrightness in Allan about how this would obviously validate Dan Marvin's claim with a serious motive less that honest.
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.
Some excellent posts here, and a couple of not so excellent ones.
Here are photos of some 1960s era TV studio cameras:
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Allan Eaglesham Wrote:When Doug Horne provided evidence that the pre-autopsy was done at Bethesda, this raised a more likely scenario: William Pitzer or a colleague (possibly Stringer) filmed the pre-autopsy.
(snip)
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.
See the photos of 1960s era "wheeled TV cameras" in my post above.
My questions are as follows:
i) is there any evidence of any other attendees seeing such a camera in the autopsy theatre?
ii) is there any evidence that Pfizer had demonstrated the ability to use such a camera?
iii) is there any evidence of technicians being on hand to capture the images filmed by such a camera and its associated rig?
iv) alternately, is there any evidence that Pfizer may have used a different and much smaller camera, such as that used by Zapruder, or a stills camera?
v) where are the photographs or still frames?
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
When discussing the available technology of a given period in the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries -- at least -- we must differentiate between publicly available and privately held methods and machines.
An example: We have no way of knowing how long stealth technology has been available to the U.S. armed forces. Reports of mysterious, triangular-shaped flying objects that do not register on radar screens long predate the public unveiling of the stealth fighter and bomber.
That being noted, Jan's questions are on-point and must be addressed if we are to get to the truth here.
I might add that the Z-film and other controversial still and motion pictures of assassination-related subjects, in tandem with their attendant, ongoing controversies, provide all-important contexts for our study of the Pitzer operation.
Charles Drago Wrote:When discussing the available technology of a given period in the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries -- at least -- we must differentiate between publicly available and privately held methods and machines.
An example: We have no way of knowing how long stealth technology has been available to the U.S. armed forces. Reports of mysterious, triangular-shaped flying objects that do not register on radar screens long predate the public unveiling of the stealth fighter and bomber.
That being noted, Jan's questions are on-point and must be addressed if we are to get to the truth here.
I might add that the Z-film and other controversial still and motion pictures of assassination-related subjects, in tandem with their attendant, ongoing controversies, provide all-important contexts for our study of the Pitzer operation.
Charles - you and I have discussed this many times, and are in total agreement.
As a rough rule of thumb, I would estimate that covert or black science is usually around 20 years ahead of overt public domain science. Stealth technology is a classic example.
However, my first question would be: if a secret film/video technology existed, why install it in "remote CCTV" in Bethesda?
What is the overriding national security reason for installing it here?
Because a President might be assassinated and his corpse taken here for an autopsy?
My second question would be: if there was a secret film/video technology in use in Bethesda, would Pfizer both know of it and be trained in its use?
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
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?
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Charles - you and I have discussed this many times, and are in total agreement.
As a rough rule of thumb, I would estimate that covert or black science is usually around 20 years ahead of overt public domain science. Stealth technology is a classic example.
However, my first question would be: if a secret film/video technology existed, why install it in "remote CCTV" in Bethesda?
What is the overriding national security reason for installing it here?
Because a President might be assassinated and his corpse taken here for an autopsy?
My second question would be: if there was a secret film/video technology in use in Bethesda, would Pfizer both know of it and be trained in its use?
Our agreement continues.
One example: I too am hard-pressed to imagine why secret film/video technology would have been installed at Bethesda.
