Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Ok let's say for the shake of the argument that Israelis were involved at the Facilitator-mechanics level.
Again they would have been junior partners in the crime not the prime movers.

For "junior partners" it's funny how Israel, or persons of strong pro-Israel politics, show-up at all the most influential and powerful locations in the assassination, as Piper details.

Piper tried to convince us that Israel and Ben Gurion were the big sponsors of the conspiracy which is a different game all together. It is classical disinformation that mixes facts with fiction, concentrates in a detail blown out of proportion and the end result is to discredit anything that might be true.

Funny how a "blown out of proportion" detail would cause a Prime Minister to resign in a state of compromised mental health.

I wouldn't rush to discrediting the true parts so quickly. Instead of making excuses to dismiss them, why don't we discuss them instead? You'll find they lead to some of the most powerful influences and networks in the assassination. During the War On Terror the US Government was saying "follow the money". When you do that with the Kennedy assassination it leads right square back to the same covert funding sources for Israel. So it would be accurate to say that the nuclear issue was not the only one involved. Lansky was funding Israel through this Tibor Rosenbaum network. Bobby Kennedy was going after Hoover's 'non-existent' mafia. This wasn't only about nukes.

It is pointless to discuss this any further, we'll end up repeating ourselves, saying the same things in another 100 posts and we 'll never convince Mark or Albert about the fallacy of the Piper book.

In my opinion you can't credibly do that without discussing Piper's outlining of the Mediterranean - Swiss Bank - CIA - Israel connection. I think some people's political bias won't let them be convinced of the influence of the Mediterranean network Piper exposes.

The main thing is that Israel is a false sponsor that provides cover and alibi to the real sponsors, and this were this thread should end. We have a difference in opinion and there is no way that we'll ever agree. This is the democratic way.
Besides if anyone wants to become a tool that will help the sponsors to perpetutae the big lie, it's their right to do so. History will judge us all, no question about that.

I don't think the Evica model should be used as a blunt instrument. Yes, it is important to identify the Sponsors and the footprint of their actions, however it is also important to identify key facilitators too.


You're quitting too quickly.