Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

HE WROTE:
Just to make it clear I think Piper is wrong in his suggestion Ben-Gurion was the initiating sponsor of the assassination.

and refuses to own up to it.... nor does he bother dealing with all the evidence that points in opposite directions....

Yo Albert... who are the AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN being referred to here, why doesn't Piper ackowldege the REST of the Echevarria report and what does this have to do with Israel? (Maybe why Piper left it out?)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...&relPageId=369
A little later in the E/Mosley report we find that E and Mosley meet a rep of the Student Revolutionary Directorate (E's "superior" charged with checking Mosley out), an Agent Rogers tells us that lawyer Paulino Sierra may be involved with SRD and that there are allegations that Sierra's money is "hoodlum money but that Sierra has denied this and states that his backers are American businessmen."

{crickets chirping}

My explanation of the validity of Piper's material at the facilitator level has been explained numerous times. David, while never committing himself, agreed with it. David ignores it and once again brings my sponsor disclaimer back in dishonest context. David is finished as a credible debater. He is dishonest because he suggests above my disclaimer validates his evasive rubbish. Anyone honestly reading this thread would know right away that isn't true.

Because David hasn't read Final Judgment he doesn't understand how underwhelming his point is above. The Lansky group Piper describes fully fits both "hoodlum money" and "American Businessmen". The problem here isn't what Piper doesn't acknowledge. The problem is what others like David don't acknowledge about Piper's evidence.

There's no need to 'enemi-fy' persons who argue Piper's evidence. That's silly. I think the response of some people, or should I say embarrassing anti-intellectual non-response, speaks loudest and evidences not only the situation surrounding Piper's claims, but the validity of the claims themselves by the more than obvious universal inability of those who challenge it to credibly respond to the facts. Objective, honest people should see that David offers no sincere attempt to address the real facts or what they mean and only offers unlimited excuses. Really, to reduce this to pure ad hominem witch-hunting is the height of the absurd and those who do it right in the face of their obvious inability to address the on-topic discussion should be ashamed of themselves no matter who they are. As should those who know this isn't right and stay quiet. I don't see how they could fool themselves that the only reason they are reacting that way isn't because they can't answer the arguments. This is the Israel bias embodied no matter what logic they use to fool themselves. I've been on this site for several years yet the only time anyone has ever questioned my presence comes during a discussion of Piper. What does that tell you? Don't fall for people setting us vs them traps. Ask them to answer the arguments. They'll use any response as justification of their predetermined enemy-ization. That isn't right.

Let credibility go to those who can answer the facts. The path to credibility is through the facts and the ability to address them. If there's a war here then live up to it and practice what you preach. No sacred cows.

[Albert Doyle]

Only to a person -- or persons -- with something to hide.

Unlike Israel I suppose...

[Mark Stapleton]

That sounds threatening.

Why? If the DPF admins were attempting to find out if I wrote the posts attributed to me, I would not feel threatened. Why would you or Albert?

I wouldn't like being accused of having ghost writers or not being who I say I am. I'm surprised Albert didn't bristle at that, because I would.

I think Albert has been here for a while. Suddenly we have to check his bona fides?

Why all the urgency?

[Charles Drago]

That sounds threatening.

Why? If the DPF admins were attempting to find out if I wrote the posts attributed to me, I would not feel threatened. Why would you or Albert?

I wouldn't like being accused of having ghost writers or not being who I say I am. I'm surprised Albert didn't bristle at that, because I would.

I think Albert has been here for a while. Suddenly we have to check his bona fides?

Why all the urgency?

Because the assignment of multiple users to a single Internet identity is an established tactic of agents provocateur (see "Colby" at EF).

Because the literary qualities of the majority of posts ostensibly made by "Albert Doyle" on this thread are utterly inconsistent with the content of previous "Doyle" posts.

Because DPF does not permit the use of shared identities.

Because after repeated requests to state, on "his" word of honor, that "he" and "he" alone posts over "his" name on DPF, "Albert Doyle" remains silent.

Can you enlighten us regarding the "Doyle" identity(s), Mark?

[Greg Burnham]

Magda, Charles, Dawn, Jan, et al--

Although I hold no stature here beyond the value of my contributions--if any--to revealing the truth, I feel compelled to express my opinion as the former Sgt-at-Arms of the
JFKresearch Assassination Forum, which is archived by the DPF:

The "Albert Doyle" posts within this thread are not written by the "historical" Albert Doyle with whom we have all come to love (or hate, as the case may be).

My finding is not based upon any disagreement I may have with the "Subject's" opinions, arguments, or conclusions. It is "signature" or, in this case, the LACK THEREOF that
reveals the perfidy.

[Charles Drago]

Magda, Charles, Dawn, Jan, et al--

Although I hold no stature here beyond the value of my contributions--if any--to revealing the truth, I feel compelled to express my opinion as the former Sgt-at-Arms of the
JFKresearch Assassination Forum, which is archived by the DPF:

The "Albert Doyle" posts within this thread are not written by the "historical" Albert Doyle with whom we have all come to love (or hate, as the case may be).

My finding is not based upon any disagreement I may have with the "Subject's" opinions, arguments, or conclusions. It is "signature" or, in this case, the LACK THEREOF that
reveals the perfidy.

Yes indeed, Greg.

So far, only you and I are willing to make this charge.

Would anyone else care to opine?

[Mark Stapleton]

That sounds threatening.

Why? If the DPF admins were attempting to find out if I wrote the posts attributed to me, I would not feel threatened. Why would you or Albert?

I wouldn't like being accused of having ghost writers or not being who I say I am. I'm surprised Albert didn't bristle at that, because I would.

I think Albert has been here for a while. Suddenly we have to check his bona fides?

Why all the urgency?

Because the assignment of multiple users to a single Internet identity is an established tactic of agents provocateur (see "Colby" at EF).

Because the literary qualities of the majority of posts ostensibly made by "Albert Doyle" on this thread are utterly inconsistent with the content of previous "Doyle" posts.

Because DPF does not permit the use of shared identities.

Because after repeated requests to state, on "his" word of honor, that "he" and "he" alone posts over "his" name on DPF, "Albert Doyle" remains silent.

Can you enlighten us regarding the "Doyle" identity(s), Mark?

No I can't.

This is looking like a witch hunt Charles.

Do you want to post evidence of this alleged inconsistency? You are making the charge, after all.

[Greg Burnham]

Why? If the DPF admins were attempting to find out if I wrote the posts attributed to me, I would not feel threatened. Why would you or Albert?

I wouldn't like being accused of having ghost writers or not being who I say I am. I'm surprised Albert didn't bristle at that, because I would.

I think Albert has been here for a while. Suddenly we have to check his bona fides?

Why all the urgency?

Because the assignment of multiple users to a single Internet identity is an established tactic of agents provocateur (see "Colby" at EF).

Because the literary qualities of the majority of posts ostensibly made by "Albert Doyle" on this thread are utterly inconsistent with the content of previous "Doyle" posts.

Because DPF does not permit the use of shared identities.

Because after repeated requests to state, on "his" word of honor, that "he" and "he" alone posts over "his" name on DPF, "Albert Doyle" remains silent.

Can you enlighten us regarding the "Doyle" identity(s), Mark?

No I can't.

This is looking like a witch hunt Charles.

Do you want to post evidence of this alleged inconsistency? You are making the charge, after all.

Are you kidding me right now?

Just go back and compare the "signature" ineptitude in his previous writing style to his newly found written articulatory command.

[Mark Stapleton]

Are you kidding me right now?

Just go back and compare the "signature" ineptitude in his previous writing style to his newly found written articulatory command.

I've had a look at his last 60 or 70 posts and I have no idea what you mean.

Didn't you question my signature recently? All the issues you had with my signature were a load of cobblers.

[Charles Drago]

Why? If the DPF admins were attempting to find out if I wrote the posts attributed to me, I would not feel threatened. Why would you or Albert?

I wouldn't like being accused of having ghost writers or not being who I say I am. I'm surprised Albert didn't bristle at that, because I would.

I think Albert has been here for a while. Suddenly we have to check his bona fides?

Why all the urgency?

Because the assignment of multiple users to a single Internet identity is an established tactic of agents provocateur (see "Colby" at EF).

Because the literary qualities of the majority of posts ostensibly made by "Albert Doyle" on this thread are utterly inconsistent with the content of previous "Doyle" posts.

Because DPF does not permit the use of shared identities.

Because after repeated requests to state, on "his" word of honor, that "he" and "he" alone posts over "his" name on DPF, "Albert Doyle" remains silent.

Can you enlighten us regarding the "Doyle" identity(s), Mark?

No I can't.

This is looking like a witch hunt Charles.

Do you want to post evidence of this alleged inconsistency? You are making the charge, after all.

For an example, go to post # 162 on this thread. In it I cite the following:


How else can we explain the claim that the author of

"Utter mendacious rubbish designed to get around the truth. What David is really saying here in his backward, indirectly dishonest way, and by means of rogue travesty, is that Kennedy sensed that Israel had become an international liability because of that unilateral zealotry. He was also savvy enough to know how the CIA he was trying to control was involved in that process."

also is the progenitor of

"What point do you think you're making there vs the facts evidence you're using it to avoid?"



I can cite scores of additional examples of inconsistent language posted by the "Albert Doyle" entity.

What I cannot do is make the blind see.

"Witch Hunt," by the way, is one of Wayne Shorter's finest compositions.