Don Jeffries Wrote:Thanks for providing that information, Phil and Charles. I think that if I was accused of being other than who I am, I would at least respond in some way.
Albert, inquiring minds want to know....
Don,
As you know part of my job at JFKresearch Assassination Forum was the smoking out of agents provocateur. In better than 90% of the cases where I sounded the alarm, it was eventually
proved through technical tracking by Rich (and back channels), that I had successfully identified perpetrators from their "signature" inconsistencies. It wasn't 100%, but there was still
"issues" even with those who were "innocent of false identity" trouble makers. As I already said, I have no stature here beyond researcher and certainly didn't mean to come across as a
DPF cop. But, imagine if you will, if Gary Severson suddenly had displayed a similar writing style, including idiom, syntax, and rhetoric to that of David Lifton -- all beginning in a single
thread? Further imagine that his posts grew in length from their normally abbreviated length of "one liners" to perhaps 10 or 20 times as long. What if he lost his usual irritability and became
soothingly rational in tone, but not necessarily in content? What if his sentences, which were regularly disjointed and poorly constructed, became suddenly fluid and well articulated albeit
lacking in foundation? And finally, what if his normal grammatical and/or spelling errors all but disappeared? Such things as dangling modifiers and specifically dangling participles were
once rife throughout "Albert's" sentences, but no more. For these reasons I believe that there is a very high probability that there is something about "Albert" ...
Just as a concerned citizen. :noblesteed:
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Mark Stapleton Wrote:I haven't really noticed the literary inconsistencies Charles points to. I've read quite a lot of Albert's posts now. I don't know why Albert doesn't respond to such an allegation. He must have his reasons.
I've called for sticking to the on-topic subject matter. I feel some are flagrantly trying to divert the topic to avoid discussing the material. If anyone is like Fetzer, in my opinion, it is those imagining entities when they can't answer basic points. Mark, you should be smart enough to see that any answer you give to that will be used against you (as it is intended) and will also be used to divert from the on-topic subject matter. Shouting "Witch!" louder and louder when shown material in Piper you can't answer is no credible form of debate.
I think those who doubt Piper have forfeited this debate.
Mark Stapleton Wrote:The assassination was obviously not formal Israel national policy Charles, but I've yet to see evidence that any party derived more benefit from JFK's death than Israel.
You just don't get it.
"Benefit" is a wholly subjective term.
Not in Israel's case. After JFK's death, US aid to Israel went from $40 million to $300 million in three years. The pressure on Dimona evaporated and construction went ahead full steam. LBJ covered for Israel when they killed 31 US Servicemen on the Liberty. If it had been any other ally it would have caused a major controversy. If it had been a hostile country it would have caused a war.
LBJ obviously owed Israel a major favor. It seems like a logical conclusion to me, although I know you don't agree Charles. It also seems rather obvious what that favor was.
Dealey Plaza took him from jail to the WH in a few short minutes. It literally saved his life.
Once again Mark... you might check into your quoted numbers or at least offer a source for the "data" you present...
The amount of funds increases during JFK's tenure from and what happens in the first couple LBJ years???
So while Israel is dealing with Dimona and the Arabs... Aid to Israel FALLS - it is not until 1971 that Aid to Israel topples $300M and not until Ford does the Dam break. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...rael1.html
So please Mark... SUPPORT YOUR POSTS WITH SOME DATA... or a link, or a source... something other thatn "you say so"
And I posted Johnson's letter to illustrate that the COMMUNICATION TONE does not change with LBJ... the MIC benefits by selling Israel arms... not arming the territory with Nukes... yet.
Why help them with the doomsday device when you can make billions selling conventional arms to BOTH sides, THEN help with the nuclear arms race.
As it actually happened... what a surprise, right?
Mark... in every instance you offer informmation, opinion and references they wind up pointing int EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION of your conclusions...
David Josephs Wrote:Problem is "Albert" that the lawyer for the 30th of Novemebr group called them that, not me or the CIA.... Unless you can prove the lawyer for this group was CIA.
That's not really honest David because you were clearly using it in the context of muddying whether Echevarria's "jews" were simply businessmen. Just like you tried to weaken the context of their involvement to only Cuba. Both issues you don't really give any direct answer to when pressed on other than offering another of your overly-long disingenuous run-arounds. I see you give no answer to my contention Echevarria's backers were being sheep-dipped as anti-Castro in order to conceal their real interest. Classic Intel plausible deniability.
David Josephs Wrote:We all realize you're afraid to address me directly "Albert" ... your "did you notice" game is cute and all, but extremely juvenille.
As this entry shows, you really have no serious interest or credibility in this discussion. Again, another obscene reversal.
David Josephs Wrote:It is for this exact reason you need to QUOTE in your reponses... I never called anyone a BUSINESSMAN but since you can't post with any honest intent, why should we be surprised at this post? right....
Just like you never asked me for references on Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown. When I quoted them you disappeared. This is low quality debate. I'm sure you seek that level of discussion. This wishy washy, space-wasting type of discourse commits the offense of diverting the discussion away from the true meaning of who those backers were and their intent. If you read Piper he makes a damned good case that you couldn't be referred to as a "jew" that deep into the cabal without being directly involved with some people who had serious, traceable zionist interests. You've succeeded in steering the discussion away from that by, once again, bringing things to the level of semantics. If you read Piper you'll see that the kosher nostra and those "Businessmen" were one in the same. If you read this discussion you haven't given any direct answer to that.
David Josephs Wrote:Dimona was proceeding without US
Israel already was preparing for JFK to hard line...
BG and Eshkol LIE THEIR ASS OFF about Dimona...
This has been answered several times yet you ignore it and return to the same point. It's pretty clear that you are running away from the reality that the effort at detente Kennedy was evidenced as doing in The Unspeakable would have forced the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons. I asked you if Kennedy would have asked the Soviet Union for an unprecedented ban on nuclear weapons and not included Israel as part of the bargain? You refused to answer the question. Instead you jumped ahead to the evasive suggestion that "Hey, Israel would have gotten nuclear weapons anyway." Well, according to the argument you refuse to answer it wasn't as simple as that. As I already pointed-out and you ignored, JFK had shown signs of giving concessions to the Soviets in his withdrawal of missiles from Turkey. Ben-Gurion wasn't stupid. He probably knew exactly what Kennedy intended. He intended to up the ante and go for an even bigger detente with Khrushchev. The flaw in your evasive theory is it ignores that whether or not Israel continued its nuclear program anyway there would have come a point where it had to explain why it denied this world peace effort and lied to Kennedy? Really, that's why the letters are still classified. It's also why Ben-Gurion was sweating heavy water. Another flaw in your theory is it deals in the context of Kennedy being dead. At the time that Ben-Gurion was breaking down he did not know that Kennedy was not going to be a problem. So whether Israel intended to ignore the edict you still have to answer for the contemporary incidence or juncture that this effort illustrated in The Unspeakable would have entailed. I personally think David realizes that so he ignores it and skips ahead to "Hey, they would have gotten nuclear weapons anyway." I'm not sure that's true, and I'm also not sure that that would have happened once Kennedy drew his lines according to the very withdrawals assassination researchers stress like those in VietNam and Cuba. David, of course, has to erase this entire history that is the main argument of cutting-edge assassination researchers and authors like Douglass and DiEugenio. If you're sharp you'll see that David is subtly revising the center of power to Israel by posing it in terms of Israel calling the shots. It is that very impasse over who would have the say on Israeli nuclear weapons that caused the showdown with Kennedy. While avoiding the entire issue, David conveniently skips ahead and says it doesn't matter. In my opinion, what Piper shows proves otherwise, as does David's (and others) inability to answer it.
It's funny that some don't realize how accurate a reflection this very thread is of the impasse Kennedy had with Israel. Kennedy was surrounded by people who knew what he was doing but preferred to see spooks and shadows behind him and wonder who he was...
We'll just let the posts speak for themselves "Albert"
I've stated my arguments, provided the links, quotes, Piper passages, actual history and the real story - not the Piper/Albert/Mark "use anti-semitism to defelct everything" argument.
Your BG "nervous breakdown" evidence is non-existent Al... Every passage you try to point to proves the opposite... and with JFK INCREASING FINANCIAL AID TO ISRAEL as I've shown and linked to...
Your arguments continue to grow weaker and weaker...
Your "FACTS" never check out, and your conclusions are built on your own strawman arguments...
and your "conclusions NEVER FAIL TO INCLUDE speculation of another's state of mind,
Quote:He (BG) probably knew exactly what Kennedy intended.
David, of course, has to erase this entire history that is the main argument of cutting-edge assassination researchers and authors like Douglass and DiEugenio. If you're sharp you'll see that David is subtly revising the center of power to Israel by posing it in terms of Israel calling the shots. It is that very impasse over who would have the say on Israeli nuclear weapons that caused the showdown with Kennedy. While avoiding the entire issue, David conveniently skips ahead and says it doesn't matter. In my opinion, what Piper shows proves otherwise, as does David's (and others) inability to answer it.
Nor do ever seem to learn a simple lesson... STOP TELLING ME AND OTHERS WHAT I THINK ALBERT...
concentrate on proving your point which you have failed so miserably at these last 20 pages
The only one not offering ANSWERS, SUPPORT, or a coherent argument is you and Mark....
You SAY things but you never actually quote the source... you "paraphrase" - why?
cause you know when the source is read the actual meaning will be revealed... so you hide it... real clever but you fool no one.
And then for you to bring up the names of two authors researchers who would NOT agree with you... one who already knew Piper for who he was...
Dude... you can have any opinion you want... I give a #$%.
What you can't do is fool intelligent people with rhetoric and misdirection.... I've encounter your kind of poster over the years MANY times...
they employ a simple trick... Tautology
Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
Anyone with an ounce of understanding in math, philosophy or logic sees thru you and these posts in a heartbeat...
.....
But other than that Mrs Kennedy, how did you like the limo ride?
David Josephs Wrote:Once again Mark... you might check into your quoted numbers or at least offer a source for the "data" you present...
The amount of funds increases during JFK's tenure from and what happens in the first couple LBJ years???
So while Israel is dealing with Dimona and the Arabs... Aid to Israel FALLS - it is not until 1971 that Aid to Israel topples $300M and not until Ford does the Dam break. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...rael1.html
So please Mark... SUPPORT YOUR POSTS WITH SOME DATA... or a link, or a source... something other thatn "you say so"
Why can't I just support my posts with your data? How about this.....
The table of US aid to Israel you posted is from the CRS Report, so it's reliable. Well done.
And in one respect I was wrong. A look at the table shows that combined US foreign and military aid to Israel in FY 1966 was $216 million, not $300 million. Apologies for that error. However, a closer look at the numbers tends to support my argument rather than your dismissal of it.
JFK was inaugurated in 1961. Hence, his three fiscal budget years were 62, 63 and 1964. LBJ's were 65, 66, 67, 68 and 1969.
Foreign aid to Israel, the first column on the left, reveals a total of $217 during the Kennedy administration and $481 during LBJ's years. This averages out at $72 million per year under JFK and $96 million per year under LBJ. This is an increase of 33%. Significant but not enough to sustain my argument.
However when you analyse the next column, under the heading military aid to Israel, a different picture emerges.
The total during the JFK years comes to $26.5, an average of about $9 million per year. This was his sale of Hawk antitank missiles to Israel in 1962/63, the first major arms sale to Israel. It was a defensive weapon. The combined total during the LBJ years was $219 million, an average of $44 million per year, a fivefold increase in military aid to Israel compared to the Kennedy years!
Another thing LBJ pioneered was the concept of Qualitative Military Edge (QME). This was the concept that US aid to Israel must try to ensure their ally has a qualitative edge on their regional neighbours.
David Josephs Wrote:The amount of funds increases during JFK's tenure from and what happens in the first couple LBJ years???
So while Israel is dealing with Dimona and the Arabs... Aid to Israel FALLS
Fiscal year 1964, when US foreign aid to Israel fell from 87 million to 37 million, and military aid fell from 13.3 million to zero was a Kennedy fiscal year, not a Johnson fiscal year. What a genius you are.
It would not be the first time someone else posted under someone else's name.
Very easy if the person gives another his or her password...
It went on at EF for months.
Even when it was so clear that the poster was putting stuff there that anyone who knew the real person could see that it was totally inconsistent with the real person's beliefs.
One has to wonder why "Albert" makes no denial. Just like "Rago" .
