Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

The reason I did not review that book is because in those days we did not review books at Probe, which was a paper magazine at the time.

But even if we did do reviews back then I would not review it since the book is anti Semitic nonsense that is about as credible as Angleton and the Majestic Papers.

And IMO, Rago's mission is to try and indoctrinate enough people with this nonsense to make us look like fools next year.

I agree that Rago is a nut however that doesn't justify conflating him with Piper. Piper may be making a mistake in suggesting Israel was the primary Sponsor in the Assassination. He has to bear the consequences of that on his own. So far he chooses to refrain from defense of his thesis in public, which he again has to bear the consequences of.

I'm thinking that you didn't read Final Judgment because if you had you would have more respect for it simply because its parts are sound and withstand scrutiny. If you haven't I'm forced to point-out that you just criticized Von Pein for praising Reclaiming History without having read it and further scolded Von Pein for lack of academic integrity because of it. In my opinion any serious scholar who has read Final Judgment would avoid the obvious evasion of "anti-semitic nonsense" simply because of their fear of its evident sound components. The book has enough credible information that any person with a working knowledge of the Assassination should hesitate to label it such lest they be accused of ignoring real evidence. I would even posit that proof of the strength of the book comes from its being able to withstand such labels exactly because of the soundness of its parts. I'm surprised that persons who are well familiar with one line attempts to deny conspiracy evidence would then turn around and use them so quickly against a book that should draw more interest in what it does contain.

If people had a problem with a "Mastermind"-like claim being made by Piper I could see it because the center of gravity of the true Sponsors was very likely domestic and those Sponsors would never allow a foreign power to assassinate a US president unless they desired it. However the problem I have is the willingness of the main conspiracy intelligensia to deny the serious main-facilitator role of this emerging US/Zionist political alliance and how Piper's evidence fleshes it out. Sure, if Piper is wrong about Ben Gurion being the initiator of the assassination that doesn't justify the ignoring of a very possible main role as this Mediterranean underground became the main trunk line both politically and financially of the cabal. Phil is quick to point-out the opium-based influence of this power structure, even in the present day, but then ignores how it existed back then and how directly dependent Israel was on it in relation to Tibor Rosenbaum and the 'French Connection'. I honestly wonder if "anti-semitic nonsense" can be effectively used to deny the true affiliation of Meyer Lansky and the pro-zionist US syndicate treasurers Piper points-out and how it may be directly connected to Echevarria's statement "our new backers are Jews"? Really, could anyone who espouses a credible position in assassination research dismiss this so quickly and in such an anti-intellectual way? That's what I was trying to say is that persons with a normally high level of intellectual scrutiny suddenly display a drastic change in approach when it comes to Israel. If we analyzed Final Judgment case by case, point for point you would see it withstands these unfair dismissals. Sure Deep Politics involves a hunt for the Sponsors but that doesn't exclude hunting the main facilitators and mechanics as well.