Michael Collins Piper

[Jim DiEugenio]

The letters are not classified.

I have seen them. They are actually online now.

Neither Israel nor the Mossad had anything to do with the murder of JFK.

Setting up connections, which is what Piper did via Angleton, is not presenting evidence. Its setting up connections. Peter Scott did this kind of stuff for decades, person A knew of person B, and they both knew person C and they all knew Angleton.

This is not presenting evidence at all. And that is what we should be doing today.

BTW Albert, tell us what Piper did with Jack Ruby near the end of the book?

[Albert Doyle]

Jim,


I'm smart enough to see politically motivated people who are seeking the excuses rather than acknowledging the evidence. If you are contending, with the valid connections you are finally admitting to here, that the same Israel that was connected to Newman's Angelton/USS Liberty-era CIA wolf pack wasn't involved you are asking us to suspend disbelief to an incredibly high degree. Whether the letters are declassified or not Ben Gurion told Kennedy that his denial of nuclear weapons threatened the future existence of state of Israel. Whether you recognize it or not over the years when Israel acts under the premise of the defense of its existence it has committed some atrocious offenses that have been cited by the UN as major war crimes. So the nation you ask us to blithely give a pass to, even though it was documented as cooperating with CIA and Johnson in the murder of US sailors in a false flag attack, is not one whose documented record merits such reckless disconcern or deliberate ignoring of their proven activities. I think Israel's progress towards the most funded and favored foreign nation with the most powerful lobby in human history controlling our government is not unrelated to its cooperation in Kennedy's assassination. I believe you yourself have recently outlined Kennedy's hidden middle east policy. If you bothered to reflect what Piper showed he made a iron clad case that the Swiss bank - Lansky/CIA connections made it impossible for Israel-oriented motives to not be involved.

[Tom Scully]

....... Peter Scott did this kind of stuff for decades, person A knew of person B, and they both knew person C and they all knew Angleton.

This is not presenting evidence at all. And that is what we should be doing today. .....

Let us throw darts at a board, or go ga ga over prayer man, all conflicting witness statements and testimony, aside, not to mention the lunacy exhibited in the new certainty.

You use the, "and they all knew Angleton." device as disqualifier. I expected more of you. Angleton "knew" thousands. Millions were familiar with him. Can the same be said of

the tentacles extended by more obscure individuals? Junius Meyer Schine, his wife, and the parents of George Senator all just happen to be buried in the cemetery of a small

Jewish congregation in Gloversville, NY. Chalk this up to random chance, along with Lester Crown happening to be Schine's son-in-law, Schine happening to host Edgar and Clyde

each winter, gratis, and Schine's son, G. David, happening to be so close to Roy Cohn, it was titillating. Or Cohn happening to represent, in 1963, the Baltimore based owner of Dallas

transit whose brothers happened to visit the Carousel Club. Then there is the small matter of Shaheen and Reagan both being born in Tampico, IL, pop. 600, and the release of the 52

hostages by the Iranians just 15 minutes after Reagan was sworn in as POTUS, J. Henry Rand being the best man in Shaheen's wedding, Robert Webster's last employment being with

Life Magazine's Maitland Eddy's son, and Billy Lord writing a letter of complaint in 1977 to Jimmy Carter about "George Bush Jr." and Henry Hurt, who happened to be married to the

neice of the chairman of Freeport Sulfur, (Langbourne Williams) and sponsored by the Reader's Digest Exec. editor who happened to be the son of Maitland Eddy's boss at Time-Life

and in USAAF intelligence, Edward Thompson, or the key (1975 meeting Bemiss and Devine) sponsorship of Bush for president by son of Langbourne Williams's first cousin, Sam

Bemiss.

Maybe Treo is on to something, maybe nothing matters, 'cept Edwin Walker.

Jim, you seem to disagree with the old advertising for state lotteries, "you can't win if you don't play." First, follow leads where ever they take you and buiild on them, or..... decide PM

is Oswald and then fashion the evidence around this preordained conclusion and throw out or attempt to discredit what clearly flies in the face of it? I see from your posts, Jim, which

road you have chosen, or am I mistaken?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Tom:

I don't know what you are talking about. (I hope it was tongue in cheek.)

I have always qualified my belief about PM. But that is something different, dealing with photographic evidence and an alibi for Oswald,

Piper was trying to build a conspiratorial construct that somehow included the Mossad as part of the plot of kill Kennedy. I thought it was a very weak effort, to put it mildly.

I have been studying this case day after day for about 22 years. I have read scores of books, reviewed well over a hundred, written dozens of essays, edited and published Probe Magazine for seven years, written four books myself. In my opinion, Harry Livingstone left a more valuable legacy behind than Piper did.. At least he did some original and valuable work on the medical evidence. And he may be correct on the Z film alteration issue.

But Piper's book offered no real evidence except the most tenuous of name associations. It seemed to work backward, which is never a good sign. That is: I want to get Israel mixed up in this, how do I do it?

BTW, its not fun for me to do this. Just like its not fun for me to defend Bush against that charlatan Hankey. Why? Because I think Bush I should have ben in jail over Iran/Contra and other crimes. As per Israel, I am all for a two state solution and look askance at how gutless American presidents, besides Carter, have been in the face of the Israeli Lobby. (And I should add, Peter Novick's book, The Holocaust in American Life, should be read by everyone.)

But as far as killing Kennedy, I mean, I just don't see it, just like I don't see Bush in it either.

[Jim DiEugenio]

BTW if you want to read Piper for yourself, here is a link to an earlier edition of the book:

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Assassinat...gment.html

[O. Austrud]

And here is the 6th and final revision:

http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf

[Bart Kamp]

.

[Peter Lemkin]

I just pulled out and old dusty copy of his book and thumbed through it and read parts. He connects one dot with another and often states true or true-ish facts, but I do not see where he makes any logical connection between dot A and B and all of the other 'dots'; i.e., where he proves to my satisfaction his basic premise or even his various sub-premises. I think it is telling that Piper's book (and premise) have never really 'caught on' with any [to my knowledge] of the better JFK researchers and authors. Piper obviously knows the basic players and story, but has somehow constructed his own version of who controlled whom, which I don't see support for - even in his own book. Even if some involved were Jewish (or connected to those who were), and even if some in Israel were happy with JFK's death that is far from proving that Mossad was the secret force behind Dallas [even if one adds in, as Piper does, that the CIA was working with them on it].

[Tracy Riddle]

Most people work backward on this case, picking their favorite suspect first (usually based on their political biases) and then looking for the evidence to support that scenario. Lone-nutters do the same thing, since they have a predisposition toward supporting the official story (again, usually for ideological reasons). We have the same problem with 9/11 and other cases. Politics trumps everything.

This is the worst possible way to solve any crime. It's like a Kafka story, where someone is determined to be guilty, and then we'll have the "trial" and maybe some evidence if we feel like it. You have to look at the evidence first - difficult in these cases, because so much of it is corrupted or questionable - and then determine who had the means, motive and opportunity to carry it out.

Would Israel try to make it look like JFK was assassinated by a pro-Cuban/Soviet communist? What would they gain from that? If an Arab or Muslim had been blamed for the killing, then you might have something.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Most people work backward on this case, picking their favorite suspect first (usually based on their political biases) and then looking for the evidence to support that scenario. Lone-nutters do the same thing, since they have a predisposition toward supporting the official story (again, usually for ideological reasons). We have the same problem with 9/11 and other cases. Politics trumps everything.

This is the worst possible way to solve any crime. It's like a Kafka story, where someone is determined to be guilty, and then we'll have the "trial" and maybe some evidence if we feel like it. You have to look at the evidence first - difficult in these cases, because so much of it is corrupted or questionable - and then determine who had the means, motive and opportunity to carry it out.

Would Israel try to make it look like JFK was assassinated by a pro-Cuban/Soviet communist? What would they gain from that? If an Arab or Muslim had been blamed for the killing, then you might have something.

It works both ways, though. An investigator could just as easily think it was the Israelis setting things up, if an Arab or Muslim was originally blamed, and the blaming of a pro-Cuban/Soviet Communist might divert attention away from themselves.