Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Oops, peeked out of the rabbit hole again. What is the MATTER with me, dammit?  :D

It occurred to me that, contrary to Pat Speer's assertion, Pitzer must have had greater expertise than merely closed-circuit TV. Indeed, he did. This is from a pretty comprehensive article in Grokipedia:

"Pitzer enlisted in the United States Navy in 1934, underwent training in X-ray technology, and was discharged in 1939."
...
"In these post-war capacities, Pitzer served as assistant head of the Medical Graphic Arts Department at the Naval Medical School in Bethesda, overseeing the creation and dissemination of visual educational materials for naval medical training. He also held the position of chief of the Television Division, pioneering the integration of closed-circuit television as an instructional tool to enhance medical instruction and procedural demonstrations for Navy personnel. These roles emphasized his earlier expertise in X-ray technology and photography, adapted to support broader medical education initiatives within the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery."
...
"Pitzer's responsibilities encompassed overseeing the technical operations of filming, editing, and distributing educational videos to support courses in anatomy, pathology, and clinical skills, leveraging his prior experience in X-ray technology and photography from his early Navy service. The division's work aligned with mid-20th-century advancements in medical education, where audiovisual aids improved retention and practical instruction for corpsmen, nurses, and physicians across naval facilities."
...
"As chief of the Educational Television Division and assistant head of the Medical Graphic Arts Department at the National Naval Medical School in Bethesda, Maryland, from 1961 until his death in 1966, Lieutenant Commander William Bruce Pitzer oversaw the production and management of audiovisual materials for medical training, including closed-circuit television recordings of procedures conducted at the National Naval Medical Center. This role positioned him to handle documentation from autopsies and other forensic examinations, as the facility routinely performed such procedures for military personnel and utilized graphic arts and video for instructional purposes, such as creating films of surgical and pathological processes."
...
"Pitzer's responsibilities extended to the hospital's closed-circuit television system, which he had employed in prior years to produce educational movies, potentially enabling remote capture or review of sensitive medical events without direct physical presence in the procedure room. Official records confirm that the Bethesda facility, where numerous autopsies occurred, equipped its audiovisual department under Pitzer's purview with tools for photographing, filming, and archiving post-mortem imagery to support Navy medical education and research."

It thus would seem that whatever David described Pitzer doing in his office would not have been inherently implausible.

Lance, in my experience, you won't encourage the "53 words, max" reader to read and consider the points presented in longer forum posts
if short attention span readers or those prejudiced against you generally don't take kindly to your criticism.

As a former Ed Forum JFK Debate moderator and the 2015 - 2016 comments editor of jfkfacts.org, my main observation is that unsolvable topics like
Pitzer's death are much more popular than issues that are much more likely to be solved by putting in adequate research time and trial and error search strings.

If you're not tribal you tend to be dismissed by both sides. Verifiable facts are of little to no consequence if they conflict with preconceived notions influenced
by much earlier personalities attempting to achieve sufficient notoriety to make a buck off of JFKA. Two who come to mind were Penn Jones and Mark Lane.
Harold Weisberg attempted to straddle the middle, commercially successful book author and long laboring and suffering researcher complaining about his postage
expenses.

My sense that learning anything new is resented as least as often as it is appreciated is strengthened by anecdotal experience. A prime example is my success at finding
things. I'm in the 18th year of my search for JFKA answers and contradictions to "what everybody knows is what actually happened." I receive few enough requests to put my
research abilities to work to accept that most just do not want to know. This supports why "Oswald in the Doorway," an escape from reality much more than it is an
area of serious research, can be such a popular and enduring attention getter, right up there with "Oswald is Innocent!!!!"

A result is one with a common theme of US Crony Capitalism. Discourage asking who potentially had the most to lose if JFK had lived and who did benefit
the most politically or financially because he did not survive his first Presidential term. The answer to the first question was the largest holder of General Dynamics
stock in 1963, Henry Crown, and the two politicians, father and son, who post assassination, 1964 - 2009, "served" a combined 20 years as either VPOTUS or POTUS, despite the brothers Kennedy in possession of so much influence of appearance, position, political, and financial power earlier in November, 1963.

How much has been spent by so few to demonize progressive taxation, the IRS, actual Social Democratic political goals and resulting quality of life comparison, compared to print and electronic media coverage of "Buy, Borrow, Die" income tax avoidance strategy or the result of state legislated abortions being the poorest, least resourced women being almost exclusively the ones trapped in those jurisdictions to experience compulsory full term pregnancy and delivery or back alley abortion methods?

Try this, but read it after the first and second linked topics.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090517015211/http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/opinion.html
22
In april, I already told you that they were fakes. You claimed that you already had made an attempt to verify, which of course means you were not sure yourself and nevertheless had presented them as being authentic.

It has been three months since that and you still haven't told us what the result of your "verification" is.

Instead, you play dumb and simply go back to pretending the affidavits are authentic, so you can once again ask for them to be proven fakes.

You "told" me they were fakes?  Well they must be fakes then.

I had dinner with Buell Frazier just last month.  Along with Frank Badalson, we're still in the process of verifying their authenticity, not that I owe you an explanation at all.
23
Oops, peeked out of the rabbit hole again. What is the MATTER with me, dammit?  :D

It occurred to me that, contrary to Pat Speer's assertion, Pitzer must have had greater expertise than merely closed-circuit TV. Indeed, he did. This is from a pretty comprehensive article in Grokipedia:

"Pitzer enlisted in the United States Navy in 1934, underwent training in X-ray technology, and was discharged in 1939."
...
"In these post-war capacities, Pitzer served as assistant head of the Medical Graphic Arts Department at the Naval Medical School in Bethesda, overseeing the creation and dissemination of visual educational materials for naval medical training. He also held the position of chief of the Television Division, pioneering the integration of closed-circuit television as an instructional tool to enhance medical instruction and procedural demonstrations for Navy personnel. These roles emphasized his earlier expertise in X-ray technology and photography, adapted to support broader medical education initiatives within the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery."
...
"Pitzer's responsibilities encompassed overseeing the technical operations of filming, editing, and distributing educational videos to support courses in anatomy, pathology, and clinical skills, leveraging his prior experience in X-ray technology and photography from his early Navy service. The division's work aligned with mid-20th-century advancements in medical education, where audiovisual aids improved retention and practical instruction for corpsmen, nurses, and physicians across naval facilities."
...
"As chief of the Educational Television Division and assistant head of the Medical Graphic Arts Department at the National Naval Medical School in Bethesda, Maryland, from 1961 until his death in 1966, Lieutenant Commander William Bruce Pitzer oversaw the production and management of audiovisual materials for medical training, including closed-circuit television recordings of procedures conducted at the National Naval Medical Center. This role positioned him to handle documentation from autopsies and other forensic examinations, as the facility routinely performed such procedures for military personnel and utilized graphic arts and video for instructional purposes, such as creating films of surgical and pathological processes."
...
"Pitzer's responsibilities extended to the hospital's closed-circuit television system, which he had employed in prior years to produce educational movies, potentially enabling remote capture or review of sensitive medical events without direct physical presence in the procedure room. Official records confirm that the Bethesda facility, where numerous autopsies occurred, equipped its audiovisual department under Pitzer's purview with tools for photographing, filming, and archiving post-mortem imagery to support Navy medical education and research."

It thus would seem that whatever David described Pitzer doing in his office would not have been inherently implausible.
24
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 11:52:14 PM »
Taking a 1st shot at Z223 is a pretty good place because most of the crowd was looking away from the TSBD. It coincided with the moment the limo had just cleared the tree foliage. It’s consistent with the idea the shooter had stacked the boxes to use as a rifle rest and that he had thought out when he was going to begin shooting. He figured in advance how long it would take him to CALMLY lean over and position his rifle on the boxes, and start tracking the limo in his sights. He was going to AIM his 1st shot and hopefully get just the one shot one kill result. He saw the result of his 1st shot was the body. He therefore continued to track JFK for the next 4.8 seconds and because the limo slowed  down to 8mph (almost stopping) his Z313 was an incredibly aimed shot.

Ok so far, this makes a lot of sense. But what reasons for the shooter to fire a 3rd shot 2 secs after seeing the devastating result of the Z313 shot?

Possible reasons:

1. The shooter had prepared to shoot a 3rd shot with his bolt action rifle as rapidly as he could after he fired his well aimed shot at Z313. Maybe it just missed slightly above JFK.

2. The shooter saw Clint Hill trying to jump on the limo and took an impromptu pot shot with his bolt action rifle at him which just missed Hill.

3. The shooter was truly a lowlife scum taking a quick pot shot with his bolt action rifle at the 1st lady.

4. The shooter was using a semi auto rifle and he fired the last 2 shots rapidly, the last one 0.5 sec after Z313 which missed high because of muzzle rise effect.

5. There were 2 shooters using bolt action rifles, the 1st shooter firing the MC rifle and the other shooter using a more precision scope rifle and he fired the Z313 shot using hollow point ammo which left a fine trail of fragments. The 1st shooter was able to hit at Z223 then took too long tracking JFK and fired a missed shot following about 1 sec after the 2nd shooters well aimed Z313 shot.



25

Here's Mary Woodward's 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News article on the assassination:

Four of us from Women’s News, Maggie Brown, Aurelia Alonzo, my roommate Ann Donaldson, and myself had decided to spend our lunch hour by going to see the President.

We took our lunch along—some crackers and apples—and started walking down Houston Street. We decided to cross Elm and wait there on the grassy slope just east of the Triple Underpass, since there weren’t very many people there and we could get a better view.

We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us, it seemed. Jackie was wearing a beautiful pink suit with beret to match. Two of us, who had seen the President last during the final weeks of the 1960 campaign, remarked almost simultaneously how relaxed and robust he looked.

As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces he noticed in the crowd.

After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends’, was that as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and occupants of the President’s car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt.

Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don’t believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn’t believe the noise was really coming from a gun.

Then after a moment’s pause there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car.

This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned half-way around, and then [crawled out onto the trunk of the limo and crawled back and] fell on top of her husband’s body. Not until this minute did it sink in what actually was happening. We had witnessed the assassination of the President.

The cars behind stopped and several men—Secret Service men, I suppose—got out and started rushing forward, obstructing our view of the President’s car.

Then I started looking around at the stunned crowd. About 10 feet from where we were standing, a man and woman had thrown their small child to the ground and covered his body with theirs. Apparently, the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads.

Next to us were two Negro women. One collapsed in the other’s arms, weeping and uttering what everyone was thinking: “They’ve shot him.”

It still seems like a horrible nightmare.

It will be a real-life nightmare to haunt us all for a long time to come.

. . . . . . .


I have edited her article so that it more closely aligns with what actually happened:


The four of us, myself, Maggie Brown, Ann Donaldson, and Aurelia Alonzo, had been waiting about half an hour on the north side of Elm Street when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car.

The President was waving to spectators on his right.

Very soon there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise that appeared to have come from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends’, was that as a joke, someone had backfired their car.

I don’t believe anyone was hit by that first shot.

The President and Mrs. Kennedy looked around [at Z-144], as if they, too, didn’t believe the noise was really coming from a gun.

As the limousine approached us, the President was looking straight ahead, and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned and smiled and waved directly at us.

Then after a moment’s pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car.

Instead of speeding up, the President’s car came almost to a halt.

This was followed by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband’s body. Not until this minute did it sink in what actually was happening. We had witnessed the assassination of the President.

A Secret Service man got out of the follow-up car and started rushing forward, obstructing our view of the President’s car.

Then I started looking around at the stunned crowd. About ten feet from where we were standing, a man and woman had thrown their small child to the ground and covered his body with theirs. Apparently, the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads. There were three shots altogether.

It still seems like a horrible nightmare.

It will be a real-life nightmare to haunt us all for a long time to come.

As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces the President noticed in the crowd.

26
Not that anyone should care, but that's Barbara Munroe on the left, receiving her promotion from the Nurses Corps to the Medical Service Corps in 1957. She was HIGHLY successful, holding some important positions that had never previously been held by a woman, but I couldn't determine when she died.

Below that is a hypnotic session with Dennis David. I couldn't make heads or tails out of much of it, but the hypnotist reportedly said that on a scale of 1 to 10 for credibility, David was an 11. He starts talking about the Pitzer encounter at about 45:45.

With that, the rabbit hole is officially closed.



27
If you don't want to explain how the affidavit is fake, that's fine.

In april, I already told you that they were fakes. You claimed that you already had made an attempt to verify, which of course means you were not sure yourself and nevertheless had presented them as being authentic.


I have no need to lie.  Also, I have pics.  Not that you'll ever see them.

As for your "ego" comment, you're being foolish.  I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.  I posted the two affidavits where Frazier acknowledges that the rifle was in the car.  You called them fakes.  That prompted me to inform you that I've already made an attempt to verify.

Like you, I simply wanted to verify for myself (in this case, the authenticity of the two affidavits).  If I had plans to speak of what was discussed during this pizza dinner with Buell, then I would have asked him (and Dave Perry) right then and there if I could discuss (on various internet forums and Facebook groups) what we talked about.

How many times are you going to comment on something which you know nothing about?

It has been three months since that and you still haven't told us what the result of your "verification" is.

Instead, you play dumb and simply go back to pretending the affidavits are authentic, so you can once again ask for them to be proven fakes.

I have no need for hypocrisy here.  I have indeed shown a statement (signed, in fact) by Frazier where he acknowledges that the rifle was in the bag, i.e. the bag was large enough for the rifle, i.e. the bag couldn't have been carried the way Frazier described.

Hilarious.

I'm not going to get into a "prove it's fake" conversation. If you want people to believe that Frazier actually would admit in a real affidavit that he lied to the police and the WC, have at it!
The next time you see him (if you ever saw him to begin with) tell him about your "find" at Ripley's believe it or not and see how he responds.

28
If nothing else, I am thorough. In a frenzy of near-terminal boredom, I peeked out of the rabbit hole and skimmed all 387 posts at the Ed Forum in which Dennis David was mentioned. Understandably, the vast majority dealt with the shipping casket issue, which does not interest me at all. However, I did discover some negativity toward David – especially on the part of Pat Speer, who for some reason seems almost incensed by David’s Pitzer claims and who fudges the truth a bit himself.

For the sake of completeness, let’s include this stuff …

Pat says that Lifton had “warned him” about David “years ago,” suggesting that David had never said anything to him about Pitzer and that David was a bit of a “fantasist.” Pat himself notes that it’s possible this was sour grapes on Lifton’s part because he had failed to follow up on the Pitzer angle, which would have been perfect for Best Evidence. The Heiner e-book sides with David on this issue. In the 1975 newspaper article, the subject of which was Pitzer, David did refer to having seen “slides” that showed a frontal wound – so it seems almost unbelievable that Lifton would not have pressed David for what the hell that was all about. It also seems unlikely that Lifton, who relied so extensively on David as a major player in the body-alteration scenario, would have “warned” Speer that David was a “fantasist.”

In his 2017 memorial tribute to David, Lifton declined to dive into the Pitzer matter. He said, “Yes, of course we talked about it, and that was the one thing we had to ‘agree to disagree’ on.” He indicated that the difference related to whether Pitzer had been murdered (David) or committed suicide (Lifton). He felt that David had been close to Pitzer and that believing in murder invested the death with greater meaning; he did not address David’s claim of the encounter in Pitzer’s office.

To me, David’s claim in the 1975 interview of having seen slides showing a frontal wound strongly suggests to me that the Pitzer encounter was not a long-after-the-fact invention. Speer repeatedly refers to David as having surfaced “decades later.” 1975 was not decades after 1963, and for all we know David might not have surfaced at all if the erroneous newspaper article had not raised his hackles. He was no Judyth Vary Baker.

Here is a post by Pat describing why David’s story is “riddled with problems”:

1) Pitzer did not work with film and photos, but closed-circuit TV.

OK, but he was the officer in charge of the Audio/Visual Department.

2) There is no evidence the closed-circuit TV system was in use on 11-22-63.

OK, but David never said it was. (There has been speculation, however, as to whether it might have been in operation during the autopsy.)

3) There is no evidence he had anything to do with JFK's autopsy.

OK, but David never said he did. David himself was not at the autopsy and specifically said he didn’t believe Pitzer was either. He did not know the origin of the film and photos he saw in Pitzer’s office.

4) David had credibility issues of his own. To sell the murder angle, he'd told people Pitzer was left-handed, but his family insisted he was right-handed. And when Eaglesham saw the autopsy photos, he confirmed that the wound was on the right side.

OK, but David had played cards with Pitzer on many occasions and saw him deal with his left hand. It was a natural assumption on David’s part. The issue was not resolved until 1995, when “Dangerous Dan” Marvin spoke with Mrs. Pitzer by telephone. The rumor of a wound to the left temple was not started by David and was not put to rest until Eaglesham examined the photos many years later.

Moreover, Pat like everyone else seems to assume that David’s claims go poof if Pitzer committed suicide. The question I have raised is: Do they? Sure, it would be way more exciting if a plausible claim of murder could be made, but I don’t believe a verdict of suicide necessarily puts the issue to bed.

The final “problem” highlighted by Pat is that David changed the location of the frontal wound over the years:

5) And that's not the only reason to question David's credibility. He started out claiming the small entrance on JFK's head was here:

The photos below illustrate what Pat was talking about. He said David “was recently discredited by our own Sandy Larsen, when Sandy demonstrated that David had initially claimed the wound shown him was on the temple, but then changed it to being high on the forehead, after becoming a darling of the research community.” You can decide for yourself how significant this change was. It looks pretty close to me. Pat referred to David as having become a “darling” of Mantik and Aguilar, and it’s quite possible that David did fudge a bit as he become more enmeshed in the CT community – but it seems to me that his claims remained quite consistent and low-key. Moreover, Sandy took Pat to task for "dishonestly" mischaracterizing what he had actually found.

The first image is from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."





Lastly, concerning the issue of possible lucrative post-retirement employment offers to Pitzer, Allan Eaglesham stated in 2004, “Mr. David also says Pitzer had offers for employment from local TV stations. I believe there were two offers, made over the telephone, from a national network.” By the time of Eaglesham’s involvement, I believe that Pitzer’s plan to teach at a junior college was known, so apparently David was talking about other offers and was sticking with the story he had told the newspaper in 1975.

29
Munroe was an officer in the same educational outfit at Bethesda as David and Pitzer. According to David, he, she, and Pitzer made up an impromptu office lunchtime bridge club (of.....three). According to the story, David ran into Munroe after the suicide when he was stationed at the Navy's Great Lakes station. He said that she told him that she also believed that Pitzer was murdered, presumably for the same reasons. As such, she would be valuable corroboration.

OK, my mistake. I was searching for "Monroe." I did at least verify her existence. She was an MSC, which I believe is the rank to which David was aspiring. Apparently, however, there is no question that lots of people including the family suspected Pitzer had been murdered, which is why the Navy and FBI undertook the level of investigation they did.
30
Aguilar is obviously intelligent, literate and informed on topic.

Lots of intelligent, literate, "informed-on-a-subject" people are nuts.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10