Allan Eaglesham

3. is it worth my time to go through what amounts to a medium size warehouse of tape stock to find it? Tom: Without a doubt. A number of researchers claim to have seen a film taken from a similar point of view as Zapruder's, but which shows significant differences from the extant movie. On the face of it, there is a small chance that the movie owned by your friend is the "other" one. If so, its importance cannot be overestimated. Even if your friend's film is a copy of Zapruder movie, given the controversy over whether it has been altered, it would be extremely important if key aspects differ. However, if the warehouse has been subject to forty years of extremes of temperature and humidity, it is possible that the movie -- whatever its provenance -- may be so degraded as to be worthless. Until you know what you've got, I would keep mum about this. Good luck. Allan

I cannot see the logic of this argument. We have evidence from Dennis David (who I find a convincing witness) and Jerrol F. Custer that Pitzer filmed the autopsy. According to Dennis David, Pitzer believed the film showed that JFK was shot from the front (page 16): Law: Now, these are pictures. David: These were pictures. They were black and whites, and colored. Law: So he actually had these with him? David: Yes he did. And he was editing a film, a sixteen-millimeter film. I watched him do several reels. I got the impression that he was pulling some of the frames off of the film to make slides with. I could be wrong. You know, I helped him. And, you know, watched some of these. We were looking at various aspects, and we made some continents. Number one, it was our distinct impression - impression, hell, it was our opinion, actual opinion - that the shot that killed the president had to have come from the front. Law: And why do you say that? David: Because we both noted a small entry wound here (points to the right side of his forehead) from another photo, and a large exit wound back in this area (indicates right rear of head). I had seen gunshot wounds before, and so had Bill. I've seen a lot of them since, and I can assure you that it definitely was an entry wound in the forehead. By this stage Pitzer was probably aware that a cover-up was taking place. I would have thought it highly likely he would have made a copy of the film. However, even if he didn’t, those who were involved in the cover-up would have been frightened that he had. Even if they confiscated Pitzer’s film, they could not be guaranteed that it would not re-emerge later on. This would have been very damaging to the FBI or the organization that had confiscated this film and did not allow it to be shown to the Warren Commission. The fact that he was about to retire would have made him especially dangerous. No doubt he was concerned about his pension. Once he was retired and had his pension, he would have every reason to publish it. Therefore, those who were involved in the cover-up, had every reason in the world to want Pitzer to die at this particular time. Of course, motive does not prove murder took place. However, as far as I am concerned, this seems to point towards murder rather than suicide. John: You are confusing your terms of reference. Yes, Jerrol Custer said he saw Pitzer film the autopsy, but he never said he saw a film of the JFK autopsy in Pitzer's possession. Dennis David saw a film of the JFK autopsy in Pitzer's possession, within a few days of the assassination, but never said that Pitzer was present in the autopsy room making that film. Only Jerrol Custer said that he saw William Pitzer -- or anyone else -- with a movie camera in the autopsy room. In contrast, a few years before the interview with William Law, Custer told Walt Brown that Pitzer was present in the autopsy room taking photographs: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/custer~1.htm Custer also told Law that Pitzer's right hand was congenitally deformed (nonsense), and although it appeared in his exchange with Law that he knew Pitzer well, his words to the ARRB (October, 1997, pages 40–42), shortly before his interview with Law, reveal something else. Q: In addition to Floyd Riebe’s taking photographs, did you see anyone else take photographs? A: There was a chief there that night that was taking movies…he was the gentleman that had committed suicide, supposedly… Q: …Do you remember the chief’s name? A: No I don’t. Q: Does the name Pitzer mean anything to you? A: Yes. Now, it rings a bell, but I’m not quite sure. But that name “Pitzer” does ring a bell. I suggest that you read Law's overall impression of Mr. Custor's trusworthiness in "Eye" (pp. 140-142). "Of course, motive does not prove murder took place." We agree on that. As I said before, how William Pitzer died should be judged on the available physical evidence -- not on the words of a proven embellisher or on speculation on whether or not Pitzer had a film and what he might or might not do with it. Allan

Most of us have had experience of friends who have killed themselves. We are always shocked but at another level we understand why they have carried out this act. I find the evidence concerning the personality and state of mind of Pitzer put forward by Dennis D. David and Jerrol F. Custer very convincing. So with the limited evidence available, I find the suicide story difficult to believe. At the same time I am also unconvinced by Dan Marvin’s assassination story. However, one does not have to believe Dan in order to think that Pitzer was murdered. Do you accept the story put forward by Dennis D. David and Jerrol F. Custer that Pitzer did have a film of the autopsy? If so, what happened to it? If it had been seized by the FBI what would the reaction have been if Pitzer issued a statement explaining what was on the film and why the FBI had taken it? John: What is your source for Jerrol Custer saying that William Pitzer had a film of the Kennedy autopsy? If your opinion on how LCDR Pitzer died is based on Dennis David's and Jerrol's Custers views on Pitzer's current state of mind, you are on shaky ground. Dennis had not seen his friend for almost a year before Pitzer's death. Custer may have known who Pitzer was (although "may" is the operative word -- please read the footnote on page 116 of "In the Eye of History" -- but he had no contact with him.) Regarding Pitzer's personality, did you read the article to which I provided a link? I agree that one does not have to believe Dan Marvin to think that Pitzer was murdered. In fact, Dan Marvin is irrelevant here. Neither is it impossible for Pitzer to have had a copy of a film of the Kennedy autopy and to have committed suicide. If Pitzer was involved in generating a film of the Kennedy autopsy, it his unlikely that he would have kept a "personal" copy. There is no evidence that such a film was seized by the FBI -- he would have handed it to his commanding officer, or whoever ordered him to generate/edit said movie. The Pitzer-was-murdered scenario rests on the deceased being left-handed. If Dennis David had not been mistaken in that regard, it is likely that no one beyond his family would have heard of him. The manner of LCDR Pitzer's death should be judged on the physical evidence. Allan

John: In my opinion, LCDR Pitzer killed himself. http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/opinion.html Allan

Nice analogy, Allan ... if you don't understand something, then one should smell a rat. Should this rule also apply to not understanding how steam engines work, or how they get the ship inside the little bottle, or how planes get their lift so to fly, and so on? Many people don't know how a camera is able to take a picture, thus should they also consider something sinsiter is going on because of this? There are certain things about having to alter a Kodachrome II film that would give the alteration away ... according to experts. They say that those signs are not present on the Zapruder film, so where does that leave us? It's like someone saying that there must be a way to get the yoke out of an egg without penetrating the shell ... don't tell me it can be done - show me ... show the experts. Until then, it is just another chicken little running around yelling the sky is falling because he doesn't understand what's really happening. Bill Bill: Context. Allan

David, are you not capable of writing anything other than a few say-nothing disjointed sentences? How many times do I have to remind you that "YOU" have not seen anything that proves photo and film alteration, so why are you wasting my time. I don't buy the WC story either and I spend a great deal of time researching and creating clips to show the viewer why I say what I do. However, to date, as you also have acknowledged, no one has shown any proof that the Zapruder film is altered. I've heard people say that there should be bullets seen flying through the air in the Zfilm - details of the avulsed bones in the hair on the back of JFK's head should be seen - and so on ... but it is their lack of knowledge of the camera Zapruder used, as well as the type of film Z used that prevented him from capturing such details. And what common sense are you talking about ... because what ever it is - it never demonstrated to you that the Zfilm had been altered because that is what you have said to this forum. Your disjointed ramblings appear to be double talking ... so any time you decide to present a case for alteration, expect to be thorough about it and to have your own words come back and bite you on the rear. Bill BMiller, Miller, Miller -- you provide endless comedy for those of us that have been around since you showed up... so, what's to debate? When you can tell me you've viewed and documented any JFK related first generation film or photo, with an affidavit, we'll have something to talk about -- till then you post nothing but o-p-i-n-i-o-n concerning same -- your letting your fans go to your head -- we KNOW better..... David: Excellent post. Until Professor Joeseph Q. Blow comes forward with his sworn affidavit -- and physical proof of some kind -- that he altered the film, Bill will continue to say that alteration hasn't been proven. The proof is in the pudding. I don't understand what I see in the film, so I smell a rat. If someone can reconcile what the film shows with eyewitness testimony from Parkland -- and I wish someone could -- my opinion will be that the film was altered. How or when I don't know -- but my eyes tell me that something is mighty queer. Bill can talk about "bone plates" till the cows come home... Allan

Did not go totally unnoticed?? The fundamental point here is that the Z-film shows a huge wound that would be impossible to ignore -- not one that might or might not be noticed.

Thank you, Ron: Excellent post. The Z-film shows that approximately 25% of the president's cranium was avulsed: everything above and forward of the right ear, including the right forehead. How this huge wound could be characterized by Parkland medics as being in the rear of the head is beyond comprehension. The available autopsy photographs do not show this avulsion; the "pig's ear" flap seen in some of them is small by comparison. The right-lateral X-ray can be interpreted as showing it, however. Allan

Chuck: You may find this interesting, and relevant to your question: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/AutopsyRoom Allan

"Another curious aspect is the amount of blood that has pooled on the floor. Again, this doesn't seem to jibe with the apparent wound to the head." James: The large pool of blood may be consistent with the close-up photograph. A large amount of blood will be produced from a head wound if the heart continues to pump. The person dies from loss of blood. Greater trauma to the brain is more likely to lead directly to death (as in President Kennedy's case, for example) with less production of blood. Allan

No exit wound? For comparison, an actual "intraoral shotgun wound" wound may be viewed here: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/InstantWebPage James, thank you for raising this issue. Allan

Steve: According to Paul O'Connor, Lemay attended the autopsy on President Kennedy's body. Allan

Right, Jack ... no attacks ... give me a break! You have been presented with evidence that not only showed the gross errors in your observations, but it was done civily and you didn't address the points made at all because you are not one to admit your mistakes. Instead you call people who show you up - "disinformation agents". Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator ======================== Jack: Let's leave this. Bill: The "discussion debate" was between Jack and me. David: I look forward to your discussion. Thank you. Allan

Allan, The definition [as stated above] re discussion is; talk, no one I know of is looking to win debate points... David: I am less certain of the distinction between "discussion" and "debate" -- and their applicability here -- than is Jack. As long as both sides understand the terms of reference, fine. I seek to clarify not to complicate. Thank you. Allan

"There will be NO debate, discussion only." From Thesaurus.com: ---------------- DEBATE 51 entries found for debate. Main Entry: debate Part of Speech: noun Definition: discussion Synonyms: agitation, altercation, argument, argumentation, blah-blah, bone, bull yard, cogitation, consideration, contention, contest, controversy, controverting, deliberation, dialectic, disputation, dispute, flak session, forensic, hassle, match, meditation, mooting, polemic, powwow, rap, rap session, rebutting, reflection, refuting, tiff, words, wrangle ---- DISCUSSION 36 entries found for discussion. Main Entry: discussion Part of Speech: noun Definition: talk Synonyms: altercation, analysis, argument, argumentation, bull session, bull yard, canvass, colloquy, confab, confabulation, conference, consideration, consultation, contention, controversy, conversation, debate, deliberation, dialogue, discourse, dispute, dissertation, examination, exchange, excursus, flap, gabfest, groupthink, huddle, interview, meet, meeting, powwow, quarrel, rap, rap session, review, scrutiny, symposium, ventilation, wrangling --------------------- David: Do you need to define the subtle difference(s) you see between "debate" and "discussion"? Above, "debate" is defined as "discussion," and "debate" is provided as a synonym for "discussion." Allan

An alternative take on the Expendible Elite case, from the Post & Courier, Charleston, SC. Allan --------------------------------------------------- Green Beret suit ends in draw Jury decides neither side defamed the other in legal fight over book BY SCHUYLER KROPF The Post and Courier A $700,000 defamation lawsuit over a book that says U.S. Green Berets illegally fired into neutral Cambodia in 1966 and nearly committed mutiny during the Vietnam War ended in a draw Monday. A jury of four men and four women ruled that neither side in the legal fight over the book "Expendable Elite" defamed the other. The book's author claimed victory for the truth, while lawyers for the Green Berets said their fight might not be over. After deliberating for 2 1/2 hours, a jury at the U.S. District Courthouse in Charleston said the seven Green Berets who sued retired Green Beret Lt. Col. Daniel Marvin over his portrayal of their actions failed to prove that his written words defamed them. In tandem, the jury said Marvin failed to prove his claim the ex-soldiers defamed him when they made public statements that his book is "100 percent lies." Both sides had different interpretations of the outcome. "This is a big victory for these guys," said Chris Ogiba, lawyer for Marvin and his publisher, Trine Day Press, which also was found not liable. Marvin said the verdict vindicated his story that Americans were fighting in Cambodia early in the war, that the Green Berets were poised to help assassinate Cambodian Prince Norodum Sihanouk, and were ready to fire on friendly forces rather than surrender a base and put a tribe of allied Vietnamese natives into jeopardy. "I'm glad to see the victory of truth over evil," Marvin said through tears. Charleston lawyer David Collins said Marvin's claims remain in doubt because the jury didn't rule whether his book was true, only on whether the seven ex-Green Berets were defamed. During his closing argument, Collins said Marvin's account doesn't mesh with the historical record, and that the area around An Phu was mostly quiet and peaceful in 1966. He called Marvin the "Walter Mitty of Vietnam" because, as a quartermaster in charge of supply and logistics, he never would have been exposed to such daring military actions, Collins said. Like the fictional character Mitty - a henpecked husband with extravagant daydreams- "everything he (Marvin) saw in day-to-day life was blown totally out of proportion," Collins said. Marvin published his story in 2003, saying it detailed how covert operations are "masked to permit, even sponsor, assassination, outright purposeful killing of innocents, illegal use of force and bizarre methods in combat operations." One of the claims in the 362-page book was that Green Berets were willing to disobey an order to withdraw from An Phu after the brass ordered the camp closed. Leaving would have endangered the anti-communist Buddhist sect known as the Hoa Hoas, Marvin claimed. Marvin retired from the Army in 1973. He said he was driven to write the book after becoming a born-again Christian in 1984. The soldiers, all of whom served with Marvin, said the book is "false, libelous, defamatory, embarrassing and humiliating." If Marvin's mutiny story is true, they contend it would have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and international law, and could have been punishable by death. They were seeking a minimum of $700,000 in damages. Their lawyers said an appeal is a possibility.

"I get a call from a friend in the CIA, saying I and Dang were being set up for a Company hit right before the border so I better watch out." This sentence is culled from the Arctic Beacon article, the URL for which is provided by John in the initial post of this thread. Thus LTC Marvin is telling us that, on one hand, he was solicited by the CIA to accept a hit (on "a military officer") and on the other hand he himself was the target of a CIA hit -- and he lived to tell the tale in both cases. Allan

Tim: In the final analysis I guess all that we each should hope for is that we get what we deserve. Allan

My understanding is that the plaintiffs' lawyers were paid by the Special Forces Association, with the expectaion of compensation as a result of the verdict, that this had nothing to do with the CIA or the Pentagon. Allan

Dan is a member of the Forum so maybe he will tell us. LTC Marvin was sued for libel. He countersued for libel. The jury decided that neither party was libeled. Allan

Ah Duncan and Stephen: Ye canny get ony mair enhanced than wee Jimmy -- except maybe fur wee Billy. Ah'm gettin aw nostalgic here, so am ur. Allan

I bet you wouldn't say that walking through Possilpark...lol http://www.tartanspecials.com/sexdrugsands...lls.php?pipe=hi Enjoy.and i hope this brings you back toyour senses Allan Duncan Ah Duncan... The glory days. When will we see their likes again? Cheers fur the noo, china, Allan

On the balance of the argument having considered everything,i have to concede that at the moment the evidence points in your favour.I'll continue to look at this area in more frames through the course of time.Thanks for your well thought out contribution Allan.Now let's get on to some serious business.Whose going to knock England out of the world cup?...lol Cheers for noo Duncan -------------------------- So, something of a meeting of the minds, Duncan? That's nice. Just wish there was the potential for *Scotland* to exfenestrate England. But alas, no. I probably look like a traitor from your perspective, but from this side of the pond -- in Scotland's absence -- I'll be supporting the boys in white. Sorry. Awrebestanat. Allan

"I think the depth is very debateable.Here is an official photograph of the snipers nest.I for one am 100% certain that these boxes have been moved.They are shown at the window which we dont see in any views from the outside.It would be hypocritical for anyone to now say that these boxes look smaller because of the distance from the cameras.If that was the case it would also apply to my figure.Like you Frank,i'm just saying it as it is." Duncan: I am unsure what you mean by the depth being "debateable." The photograph you show was taken hours after the assassination -- revealed by the shadows -- and the boxes had, indeed, been moved (by Detective Studebaker). I don't see where "hypocrisy" comes in here. We are getting off the subject, but anyone interested in how the boxes were moved and three "incarnations" of the carton arrangements around the SE window on the sixth floor might find this article worthy of the investment in time: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN To return to the original focus of this thread -- Duncan, in my opinion your case for a person being present in the "sniper's nest" window in the final minutes of President Kennedy's life is lacking, resulting from misinterpretation of light and shadow in blurred frames. I expect you will disagree, therefore I propose to agree to disagree, and move on. All the best, Allan

Allan and Frank, The recreation Dillard photograph you posted (Allan) shows 2 men leaning out of the window simply for recreation purposes.In the original Dillard photograph the 2 men can barely be seen and are in a further back position noticeable only by enhancement,and similar in size to the debated subject.We can not assume that the figure of this study,if it is a figure,is forward and looking out of the window.I believe he is further back,hence the smaller appearance. Original Dillard crop posted,i don't have a good copy of the original. Duncan Duncan: The space between the brick wall supporting the window sill and the wall of book cartons was about 22 inches. Therefore anyone in the location of your figure was essentially "at" the window. Allan