Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

Many others do.

Albert is not many. Albert is one other person. Though I know Charles will disagree.

Don't be dopey Magda. I wasn't simply referring to this forum.

I've read articles from commentators who openly accuse Israel of playing a role in the assassination. Gordon Duff is just one of a growing number. I'm not a twitter person but a friend who is tells me it's all over the twitterverse as well. Piper's work is not as unpopular as you would like to think.

Don't be dopey Mark. I too could quote great anonymous hoards of people are on my side too. I'm sure Piper's work is the bees knees in your small miniscule grouplet of Piper groupies. Indeed nothing else is considered by the looks of it. But his work doesn't stand up to any close scrutiny. Or even a general perusal.

Yeah right.

Anyway, what about my straightforward question, posts #635 and #640.

I just don't get it, remember?

Are you going to set me straight?

[Mark Stapleton]

Oh, but the twitterverse insists the sower of the "Dopey" sobriquet.

The word dopey offends you?

Charles called be a blithering idiot. I should take the short bus to the SS and about a dozen other things. Not to mention the bile he poured over Albert, with your eager assisstance and approval. Don't get on your high horse now you hypocrite.

[Dawn Meredith]

Maybe if people just stop responding to Albert and Mark this thread will die a much- needed death.
Dawn

[Mark Stapleton]

Others would say you accuse Jews yet offer no proof, indicating your attitude toward Jews.

You would but you have an irrational hostility to objective analysis of the available evidence.

I never said I have proof, there is no proof in this case, just debate and argument.

What 'proof' have you ever supplied for your argument, whatever that may be? As far as I know, you've never clearly outlined your opinion as to who was responsible for Dealey Plaza, let alone offered any proof. Hypocrisy is written all over you.

I think Zionist Israel played a major role in the assassination. Means motive and opportunity. They owned the media which has been pivotal in the coverup. Israel benefited more than any other known suspect in this case and the gains they accrued have been painstakingly outlined in this thread. They've totally subverted the American political process to serve their own ends and this historically dovetails quite neatly from the time the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza and LBJ's immediate accession. The whole world (except you maybe) knows that America is Israel's lapdog. It's really pathetic to watch.

What's your theory then? You've had 50 years to think about it.

Unlike you, I won't bark 'there's no proof'.

[Charles Drago]

I never said I have proof, there is no proof in this case, just debate and argument.

This case is saturated with proof of conspiracy.

What 'proof' have you ever supplied for your argument, whatever that may be?

To paraphrase: I have no idea whatsoever of what you think. I have no idea whatsoever if you've expressed your thoughts publicly. But I know that you couldn't possibly have proved your hypothesis.

I think Zionist Israel owned the media[.]

"Owned"? Isn't this anti-Semitic canard commonly expressed in the present tense? You'd best check your Classics Comics Illustrated Protocols handbook for guidance.

Charles called be a blithering idiot. I should take the short bus to the SS ...

That's "blathering" idiot and short "tank".

ATTENTION Dawn: Please do not read this as a "response" to Stapleton. In fact, I am lampooning the simplemindedness, ignorance, and prejudice (preJEWdice?) that infect his atrophied intellect.

[Charles Drago]

Albert is not many. Albert is one other person. Though I know Charles will disagree.

Magda,

While it is true that the several Albert(s) Doyle certainly agree with Mark, it also remains true that the entity is comprised of approximately 4 persons (no more than 5) by my estimation. And 4 hardly qualifies as "many" in the big scheme of things.

Damn right I disagree, Magda!

Damn right I agree, Greg!

Magda, you know -- and every reader of this post needs to know -- that I harbor boundless respect for your intellect, values and courage, and for the breadth of your expertise in deep political matters.

And that doesn't begin to express my affection for you.

But no one can master every aspect of the subjects we study.

My respect for Greg is deeply akin to the esteem in which I hold you. But with all due respect and to the best of my ability to judge, Greg's expertise in the discovery and outing of agents provocateur, like my own, is superior to yours.

"Albert Doyle" is most accurately described not as a person, but as an operation.

Period.

[Albert Doyle]

Maybe if people just stop responding to Albert and Mark this thread will die a much- needed death.
Dawn

I don't see this as a credible argument for Deep Political analysis of the evidence for Israeli facilitation of the assassination. You've personalized subject matter. It's the subject matter that is being discussed here (or avoided) not those who discuss it.

[Charles Drago]

Maybe if people just stop responding to Albert and Mark this thread will die a much- needed death.
Dawn

I don't see this as a credible argument for Deep Political analysis of the evidence for Israeli facilitation of the assassination. You've personalized subject matter. It's the subject matter that is being discussed here (or avoided) not those who discuss it.

Note how the "Doyle" entity attempts, in a manner that is subtle, self-serving and in accordance with the long-established techniques of agents provocateur, to redefine the mission of the forum which it has penetrated and, in this instance. the greater mission of Deep Politics.

"Albert Doyle's" pronouncements must be appreciated as negative templates: When, for instance, "Doyle" and "his" ilk tell you that a specific argument is not "credible for Deep Political analysis," bet your children that the argument being challenged stands as the epitome of Deep Political analysis.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert - You've been asked numerous times...

If you don't like what I post from Piper... post what YOU THINK represents your POV as supported by Piper...
YOU'RE the one who keeps saying we haven't read the book and don't know the material well enough - but YOU DO.

POST SOMETHING from the book Albert...

Simple.

Since you are basically admitting all of your attempts at obfuscation have blown up on you shouldn't what we've already posted have been enough? (David will follow with a lengthy post explaining how he hasn't admitted anything. At that point I think we are both saying the same thing - which appears to be a trend in here, that is, not admitting anything about Piper)


I think you have nerve posing yourself this way since you still haven't answered how any "new jew backers" could get so deep into the conspiracy and not be involved with the major players? Mark did make a good point when he said jews were still isolated in 1963 into ethnic groups. This isolation, when combined with the fact support of Cuba was clearly at the covert level when it involved Dallas, makes it a near certainty that these new backers were associated with the main players. As Piper shows there was no reasonable way for any "jew backers" to disassociate from those covert zionist and Lansky interests once you got to that level. They would automatically be under their control. Plus, if these backers were separate from the main conspirators I don't think those conspirators would let any freelancers walk right into their plot. Since your responses make no effort to either acknowledge or answer this I don't think you're being honest.

[Charles Drago]

Note how the "Albert Doyle" entity excels as a Rapid Response Team.