Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

There you go Magda. Unlike you, I don't ignore polite requests. Still running?

[Phil Dragoo]

David, at your 687 you put the book to bed:

I submit that Piper relied on:

1) a report from informant 2-1-266,
2) THAT HE HEARD THAT one Thomas Mosley, (Which means 2-1-266 did not hear this FROM Mosley)
3) who ALLEGEDLY was in the process of selling weapons to Homer Echevarria - an anti-Castro Cuban member of an opposition group who's contact was "Mannie"
4) that Homer ALLEGEDLY made a comment on the 21st of Nov....... (does 2-1-66 hear this or Mosley?)
5) that "we now have plenty of money, our new backers are Jews, as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy..."

as the basis for his book and conclusion, and the sum total of the evidence offered in defense of said conclusion.

Upon this bog Piper & Company erect their indictment of Israel.

Anonymous hearsay.

Not one hundred pages of endnotes.

A guy heard a guy selling to another guy the third guy's allegation regarding a fourth guy or group of guys--which Piper & Company Expert Appraisers of All Things Jewish (as the term in the allegation is Jews, not Zionists) pronounce the Final Judgment.

Which it is: It sets Piper & Company in the category of psychosis, projecting their bigotry on the auras and penumbras of anonymous informants devoid of the slightest credibility.

The contribution to the quest for justice in the assassination and understanding its deeper context in the business model is negative: it is provocation, disinformation, Hollow Men headpiece full of straw and ergot.

[Mark Stapleton]

David, at your 687 you put the book to bed:

I submit that Piper relied on:

1) a report from informant 2-1-266,
2) THAT HE HEARD THAT one Thomas Mosley, (Which means 2-1-266 did not hear this FROM Mosley)
3) who ALLEGEDLY was in the process of selling weapons to Homer Echevarria - an anti-Castro Cuban member of an opposition group who's contact was "Mannie"
4) that Homer ALLEGEDLY made a comment on the 21st of Nov....... (does 2-1-66 hear this or Mosley?)
5) that "we now have plenty of money, our new backers are Jews, as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy..."

as the basis for his book and conclusion, and the sum total of the evidence offered in defense of said conclusion.

Surely you two are a comedy act.

David, are you seriously claiming Piper relied on this single incident as the basis for his book and conclusion?

[Magda Hassan]

:wavey:

Why would I need you to post anything from Piper. I have the book. If I want to post something I'll do it myself.

The book makes an excellent case for Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination. Highly recommended.

Looks like it will be quite a wait there David....Mark is avoiding the book because he knows it wont hold up to scrutiny...

[Dawn Meredith]

Damn!!! I am re-reading an old thread at EF and just realized who Mark Stapleton is. He used to be such a reasonable fellow. Til he discovered the Jews killed JFK.

How do people so lose their way?

Dawn

[Greg Burnham]

Damn!!! I am re-reading an old thread at EF and just realized who Mark Stapleton is. He used to be such a reasonable fellow. Til he discovered the Jews killed JFK.

How do people so lose their way?

Dawn

Some of "them" become other people who were always lost.

[Lauren Johnson]

Greg,

RE this:

Because you sure are acting like some pretty crafty operators here.

On page 58/#580, David Josephs says this:

How you can give this person ANY intellectual credibility when people like MOSLEY go unresearched, and GLADIO does not play in discussions of PERMINDEX
is, to me, absurd and requires more than the deflecting posts offered.

It doesn't take long before MS, is demanding to know what Gladio has to do with JFK assassination, as if this were the position, and fawning helplessness. 'What am I suppossed to do? Work me on this?'

My reading of this thread is that David Josephs introduced Gladio to the Permindex discussions to show the inadequacy of Mosely's analysis saying in so many words, 'it's so bad that he does not even mention Gladio.' It's obvious to a non-expert reader such as myself that Stapleton is pretending to be a partner to a conversation. That he is not. He is indeed an operator.

He should be put on moderation in lieu of being ignored which isn't going to happen. This shit has been going on for months.

Another champion of free speech announces his arrival.

No-one is forcing you to read this thread.

And if MS were an honest partner in conversation, he would be expected to answer to the effect: 'Finally someone answered my question. I see that I misunderstood about Gladio. It sure took a long time for someone to say this. LJ didn't need to be so snarky.'

Instead MS accuses LJ of being against free speech. Yet another tactical response. When caught, attack. What crap.

[David Josephs]

David, at your 687 you put the book to bed:

I submit that Piper relied on:

1) a report from informant 2-1-266,
2) THAT HE HEARD THAT one Thomas Mosley, (Which means 2-1-266 did not hear this FROM Mosley)
3) who ALLEGEDLY was in the process of selling weapons to Homer Echevarria - an anti-Castro Cuban member of an opposition group who's contact was "Mannie"
4) that Homer ALLEGEDLY made a comment on the 21st of Nov....... (does 2-1-66 hear this or Mosley?)
5) that "we now have plenty of money, our new backers are Jews, as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy..."

as the basis for his book and conclusion, and the sum total of the evidence offered in defense of said conclusion.

Surely you two are a comedy act.

David, are you seriously claiming Piper relied on this single incident as the basis for his book and conclusion?

In EXACTLY the same way "surgery to the top of the head" becomes BEST EVIDENCE... it STARTED somewhere and thru investigation was substantiated and expanded.

"our new backers are JEWS" is the only thing Piper has connects Jews to the JFK assassination... and the statement may NEVER HAVE EVEN BEEN SAID...
(I included the definition of "allegedly" just for YOU as well as a detailed reading of THAT repoert... also attached for you convenience.... - can you not read as well?)

YOU have the book... I'm not asking you to type... just POINT TO A PAGE and I'll post the entire Chapter...

Is there NOTHING you can point to in his book that support his thesis so that a normal person reading it would say,
"Oh, THAT's why he feels the Jews were involved... Meyer Lansky was jewish and.... :banghead:

??

[Phil Dragoo]

Surely you two are a comedy act.

Deflection.

Rhetorical.

Avoidance.

Mark Stapleton shilling for Piper's farcical allegation "Jews" killed JFK.

The entirety of the 771-page anti-Jewish screed rests on an anonymous informant's unverifiable claim of a third-hand comment.

Add Ben-Gurion's alleged "war" with JFK cobbled together from auras and penumbras visible only to the True Believers--

--zero plus zero, zero times zero, zero is the sum and product of the fanatics jousting at Jews.

[Mark Stapleton]

The entirety of the 771-page anti-Jewish screed rests on an anonymous informant's unverifiable claim of a third-hand comment.

That's a big statement.

Prove it.