Whether Albert Doyle is a project envisioned by the McDill request or a single adherent to a Piperian thesis
After twenty thousand words
Israel is not shown to be the sponsor of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, indicates great wealth was created by the exploitation of South American resources absent the restrictive policies of the Kennedy Administration.
With the vigorous prosecution of the Vietnam War, defense contractors made fortunes. Fortunes, too, were made by Rockefeller and others in the exploitation of the region from which JFK was withdrawing.
The Agency which had grown to enormous extrastatutory power was not threatened by the president who'd decapitated its leadership and was attempting to curtail its activities.
LBJ acknowledged Helms' hitherto de facto leadership in 1966. Helms would, in 1972 engineer Nixon's excruciating demise in 1974 the year Angleton received his pink slip showing him to be at last another terra cotta warrior.
Today the Arab Spring sweeps from the West replacing secular regimes with Islamist ones, a geostrategic ploy of CIA-NATO for clients unnamed.
From the East the Putin support of Iran and Syria works as the other part of the pincer action on Israel
The benefactor is ultimately sustained by eternal war of the type foreseen by Orwell-Blair in the quadrilateral
Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked devotes a chapter to the Echevarria comment. It's yet another loose end which hasn't been adequately accounted for. The fact that it appears to be a genuine slip of the tongue which the FBI promptly smothered is suspicious in itself.
Another thing I like about Larry's book is the way he puts the microscope on LBJ in the months leading to the assassination. The Congressional investigations into the Bobby Baker scandal were closing in on LBJ. By October 1963 Baker had resigned from his position with the DNC. Baker's legal counsel was Abe Fortas, who Larry describes as a longtime associate of Johnson, but not Johnson's business or professional counsel. The telephone record of calls reveals a flurry of calls between LBJ and Fortas in October 1963, some lasting an hour. That may not be suspicious in itself, but for the fact that they abruptly end on October 29.
On November 1, the Senate votes to expand the investigation and schedules the next hearing for November 22. I know this is old news to some, but, as Larry writes, "Johnson's interest and concern over the Baker scandal seems to have vanished, at least as measured against his earlier routine and lengthy contacts with Fortas". Did something happen in October to allay his concerns? We are left with a dramatic change in behaviour and no obvious explanation for Johnson's apparent loss of interest in neither the scandal, nor his cessation of contact with Fortas at the end of October
Between October 29 and November 22, Johnson is either at the the ranch boating, camping, attending ball games in Texas or travelling to LA, Belgium and Dallas. Why would LBJ go to Belgium?
Mark Stapleton Wrote:Between October 29 and November 22, Johnson is either at the the ranch boating, camping, attending ball games in Texas or travelling to LA, Belgium and Dallas. Why would LBJ go to Belgium?
For the waffles?
No ... wait a minute ... to micro-manage the assassination that he is sponsoring???
Since you admit to not having a working model of the JFK conspiracy, you cannot fairly be expected to possess any meaningful insight into the deep political structure of the plot. Hence your oft-repeated "nothing has been authenticated/proven" and "the Jews did it" canards.
So tell us, Mark: Was LBJ the "mastermind" of the JFK hit?
That is to say, was he a Sponsor?
Or was LBJ a Facilitator and subsequently a False Sponsor?
In your case, of course, these are rhetorical questions.
If we just discuss the on-topic subject matter some are trying to avoid there is strong evidence in Piper that Israel was a strong main facilitator in the assassination and was one of the main benefactors as history has shown.
I agree with Phil that Israel was not the Sponsor. As Phil typically shows in his reference-dense style, there's too much evidence to show there were powers who had inherent vested interests beyond Israel that came well before the Ben-Gurion impasse. However this doesn't preclude the significance of the Echevarria comment or its relation to the assassination. Echevarria's comment also bears a seriously qualifying timing and weight as well. I think both Phil's and David's conspicuous avoidance of this proves its worth. No one has made any effort to answer the point that Piper has shown that any 'new backers' who were deep enough to show up one day prior to the assassination so deeply into the cabal and announce a need to get rid of Kennedy are people who could not be separated from that main cabal. As Piper shows that cabal undoubtedly included Israel according to the main funding structure and political solidarity that glued it together. Nor did anyone even touch the fact the funding backbone for that cabal was through those CIA/Tibor Rosenbaum/Lansky dirty money laundry banks. With this in mind it is seriously incriminating to have 'jew' interest voiced in "getting rid of Kennedy". David has tried to show how this wasn't meaningful, but anyone who has read and grasped Final Judgment would see how he utterly failed. Even better, in his typical manner of obscene reversal, David tries to say the fact this statement came only the day before the assassination weakens Piper's assertion. Just the opposite - the fact it came the day before the act was carried-out strengthens its meaning. It shows those "new jew backers" were serious and got what they wanted (Or at least were made to think so by the real Sponsors).
It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments. If you look at their input they don't answer the operative, on-topic evidence. In fact, it's kind of obvious that their effort is a means of getting around the fact they can't. To me, that is strong psychological evidence of the power of Piper's information forcing them into that whether they are consciously aware of it or not. The subject matter of this thread is Piper's book and the value of its information. It's pretty clear who is offering valid input towards that subject and who isn't. "If he speaks the truth he must be a witch" is somewhat silly isn't it? Isn't that in itself proof of Piper? I suggest that the advice of not participating in the cover-up apply to ALL information surrounding the assassination and not only that which is politically preferred. As Magda agreed, the subject of Israel makes some otherwise rational posters act irrationally. In my opinion they are the ones not acting like their normal selves. And I dare say the reason is the Israel bias that draws people off the normally called for objective standard of assassination evidence inspection.
As Piper correctly shows the Mediterranean underground and its connection to Israel is too documented and too right out there in the evidence to ignore as is the zionist interest of the main treasurers of the US syndicate. Yes these men were interested in Cuba, but only in the context of its inextricable connection to the cabal, as pointed-out in Piper. Treasurers are otherwise referred to as "Businessmen". Trying to label this 'vicious ad hominem' is an obvious avoidance of these more than established facts Piper exposes, in my humble real Deep Politics-respecting opinion.
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.
Mark,
What I questioned about your forum signature had nothing to do with your identity. I was wondering what you meant in that signature about
LBJ being Zionism's greatest American friend and facilitator. The "signature" I often refer to in a different context has to do with someone's
or a group's hand being revealed by their modus operandi, among other--perhaps even more subtle--hints.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Albert Doyle Wrote:If we just discuss the on-topic subject matter some are trying to avoid there is strong evidence in Piper that Israel was a strong main facilitator in the assassination and was one of the main benefactors as history has shown.
I agree with Phil that Israel was not the Sponsor. As Phil typically shows in his reference-dense style, there's too much evidence to show there were powers who had inherent vested interests beyond Israel that came well before the Ben-Gurion impasse. However this doesn't preclude the significance of the Echevarria comment or its relation to the assassination. Echevarria's comment also bears a seriously qualifying timing and weight as well. I think both Phil's and David's conspicuous avoidance of this proves its worth. No one has made any effort to answer the point that Piper has shown that any 'new backers' who were deep enough to show up one day prior to the assassination so deeply into the cabal and announce a need to get rid of Kennedy are people who could not be separated from that main cabal. As Piper shows that cabal undoubtedly included Israel according to the main funding structure and political solidarity that glued it together. Nor did anyone even touch the fact the funding backbone for that cabal was through those CIA/Tibor Rosenbaum/Lansky dirty money laundry banks. With this in mind it is seriously incriminating to have 'jew' interest voiced in "getting rid of Kennedy". David has tried to show how this wasn't meaningful, but anyone who has read and grasped Final Judgment would see how he utterly failed. Even better, in his typical manner of obscene reversal, David tries to say the fact this statement came only the day before the assassination weakens Piper's assertion. Just the opposite - the fact it came the day before the act was carried-out strengthens its meaning. It shows those "new jew backers" were serious and got what they wanted (Or at least were made to think so by the real Sponsors).
It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments. If you look at their input they don't answer the operative, on-topic evidence. In fact, it's kind of obvious that their effort is a means of getting around the fact they can't. To me, that is strong psychological evidence of the power of Piper's information forcing them into that whether they are consciously aware of it or not. The subject matter of this thread is Piper's book and the value of its information. It's pretty clear who is offering valid input towards that subject and who isn't. "If he speaks the truth he must be a witch" is somewhat silly isn't it? Isn't that in itself proof of Piper? I suggest that the advice of not participating in the cover-up apply to ALL information surrounding the assassination and not only that which is politically preferred. As Magda agreed, the subject of Israel makes some otherwise rational posters act irrationally. In my opinion they are the ones not acting like their normal selves. And I dare say the reason is the Israel bias that draws people off the normally called for objective standard of assassination evidence inspection.
As Piper correctly shows the Mediterranean underground and its connection to Israel is too documented and too right out there in the evidence to ignore as is the zionist interest of the main treasurers of the US syndicate. Yes these men were interested in Cuba, but only in the context of its inextricable connection to the cabal, as pointed-out in Piper. Treasurers are otherwise referred to as "Businessmen". Trying to label this 'vicious ad hominem' is an obvious avoidance of these more than established facts Piper exposes, in my humble real Deep Politics-respecting opinion.
At the continued risk of being accused of participating in a witch hunt: This post is DIRECTLY out of the Fetzer book of idioms, syntax, and rhetoric.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Albert Doyle Wrote:It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments.
At the continued risk of being accused of participating in a witch hunt: This post is DIRECTLY out of the Fetzer book of idioms, syntax, and rhetoric.
Without question. Especially the charge quoted above -- which we've seen from Fetzer countless times in his defenses of the indefensible Phillip Nelson, Robert Morrow, and Ralph Cinque.
So here's my offer, "Albert" -- Admit that "you" have allowed at least one other person to post over "your" name and identify him/her/them (whether or not Jim Fetzer is among those for whom you are wearing a beard), and I'll do my best to convince my DPF partners to allow you to maintain posting privileges.
But if, "Albert," you insist upon continuing this blown operation, "you" will be held in contempt for being a deceitful, dishonorable man.
If we just discuss the on-topic subject matter some are trying to avoid there is strong evidence in Piper that Israel was a strong main facilitator in the assassination and was one of the main benefactors as history has shown.
Regis Philbin might have asked, "Is that your final answer?"
Some have suggested, "You've phoned a friend."
I don't see Piper suggesting such a modest proposal; rather, that Israel is the be-all and end-all of the assassination of the 35th president.
Regarding Echevarria, his link to DRE which, under Joannides' guidance, misdirected attention to Oswald the anti-Castro Communist will show, such comments present as disinformation creating yet another false sponsor.
Joannides was the CIA gatekeeper preventing Gaeton Fonzi, Ed Lopez, and Dan Hardaway from accessing truly pertinent information.
That Joannides hovers over this Echevarria misdirection is highly indicative it is of no value save further demonstrating the coverup.
Of course, we also have Jack Ruby revealing that he'd killed Oswald to show Jews had guts.
Piper's proposition of a "final judgment" is a seven-hundred-seventy-one-page bridge too far with a tasteless title.
His false sponsor is no more convincing than that of Zirbel-McClellan-Nelson and Larry Flynt's red-headed stepchild.
Nor the lukewarm creamed corn of the Waldron cauldron.
Upon reflection it occurs another confidential informant to another intelligence agency reported Ruby in Tel Aviv masquerading as an NKVD officer--
--a false sponsor two-fer: Jew, Soviet
By the time we get to Nagell the opposition didn't want the plot to succeed
That's if we take Nagell's account as describing a legitimate recruitment rather than another false-flag misdirection
Mark Stapleton Wrote:Between October 29 and November 22, Johnson is either at the the ranch boating, camping, attending ball games in Texas or travelling to LA, Belgium and Dallas. Why would LBJ go to Belgium?
For the waffles?
No ... wait a minute ... to micro-manage the assassination that he is sponsoring???
Since you admit to not having a working model of the JFK conspiracy, you cannot fairly be expected to possess any meaningful insight into the deep political structure of the plot. Hence your oft-repeated "nothing has been authenticated/proven" and "the Jews did it" canards.
So tell us, Mark: Was LBJ the "mastermind" of the JFK hit?
That is to say, was he a Sponsor?
Or was LBJ a Facilitator and subsequently a False Sponsor?
In your case, of course, these are rhetorical questions.
There's that blunt instrument again.
And no, LBJ was not the mastermind, as I have said repeatedly. You've misinterpreted my post yet again.
I think the sudden mood change from LBJ is very curious, especially since the expanded investigation into the Baker scandal was still underway. And why did he travel to Belguim? There could be a reasonable explanation but I'm unaware of any official duties he was performing.
These questions are not necessarily addressed to you Charles, so spare me another lecture about my ignorance of the all important model.
