Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Albert, of course he hasn't. Like some others here, he just doesn't want to know.

An objective investigator into this case would never dismiss the brinkmanship going on between JFK and Israel over Dimona, and the fact that Kennedy's death was a sudden circuit breaker which ended this deadlock. Nor would an objective investigation dismiss Ruby's close ties to Israel and Lansky. Or LBJ's lifetime devotion to Israel, from Operation Texas in the 1940's, aggressive advocacy on Israel's behalf during the Suez crisis, green light for Dimona, massive military funding increases for the Zionist state during the mid 60's and his disgraceful coverup of the Liberty attack in 1967. An objective researcher would hardly dismiss these links to Israel as 'scraping around a trash bin in an anti-semitic crusade'. If he was searching for the truth, that is.

An objective researcher might also look at other possible links to Israel, like the role played by Julius Scheppes and Sam Bloom for example, the Dallas businessmen who shared both a fierce loyalty to Israel and control of the Dallas Citizens Council. This was the same DCC which organised both the motorcade route (which they refused to change despite the urging of the SS advance man) and the Sunday morning transfer of LHO which of course resulted in his assassination by Jack Ruby.

A researcher with any curiosity at all would look closely at these things, even if just to put them to bed. Unless of course he or she is a gatekeeper.

More likely Jim doesn't want to be gate-kept himself. As a person who depends on public book sales he probably doesn't want to end-up like Piper, even though he is most of the way there because of his commendable work on JFK. I won't chastise Jim because I still admire him as one of the best brains in the business and for being single-handedly responsible for undressing major Lone Nut authors in public. I will note, however, that he doesn't do the same thing with Piper. I'll even be so bold to say he is incapable of doing the same thing with Piper and that's obviously why he doesn't.

While I totally agree with what you write above I must disclaim association with your praising of Rago. I can't understand why a person capable of the deft analysis you do here would commit the error of shooting himself in the foot so badly by praising a person who not only thinks JFK was shot by a man in a police uniform on the Knoll with a handgun, but also suggests Oswald pulled the trigger in the window. I must add, however, that your citation above shows in plain view that this evidence is not outrageous in its suggestion and is perfectly reasonable as part of normal JFK conspiracy discussion. I would ask any of these condemners what was wrong with applying the scrutiny normally applied to these credible conspiracy players cited by Mark above? Surely if you objectively analyze the level of scrutiny applied to any other such people in JFK research, including research done by Jim DiEugenio, you would see these people and their influence are highly scrutinized in any other instance EXCEPT when it comes to Piper. I'm sorry but Mark has won this point in spades and the behavior of persons who are otherwise paragons of Assassination research is disgraceful and embarrassing in its childish level of anti-intellectual, really, street level taunting and unwillingness to apply higher standards of academic scrutiny. Shame. And this isn't Fetzerian protesting either as the material Piper illustrates proves - not to mention the conspicuous avoidance of it by persons who aren't afraid to risk personal credibility by doing so. Again, Piper is almost certainly wrong about Ben Gurion's Sponsorship, however he's dead-on about the underground network and its influence. I'm beginning to understand the monomania some people have towards Israel now. You have to understand that if people are going to predictably feel like David Duke by criticizing Israel directly, and therefore not do it, that CIA would be the first group to hide their evil doings behind that screen. That's their exact modus operandi of letting internal divisions amongst their targets do their dirty work of destroying each other and therefore protecting their doings. That's exactly where CIA would hide their stuff and is exactly where they did. God bless Michael Collins Piper for being brave enough to point it out.



As to Echevarria, to play devil's advocate, back then people used to openly refer to Jewish people as jews. So if Ruby had backed some kind of arms deal involving the conspirators Echevarria might have referred to the backers as jews. However, I don't think so because the backers up to that point were the same people who were backing it all along. They were the training camp, JMWAVE, Hunt, Ferrie, Banister, CIA, Cuban exile regular suspects. So for Echevarria to say "Our new backers" would mean persons other than the previous backers. So these Lansky-affiliated backers were probably the persons being referred to. Now these people could and probably were being used by the sponsors in a main facilitator role. What I'm interested in is that there is a valid and credible trace here of the use of this falling out with Ben Gurion to spark participation in the conspiracy by a very powerful group. Piper proves the legitimacy of this trace in his information. It is hardy "anti-semitic nonsense". The parts, roles, and players are all spelled-out in Final Judgment.



(Note to Mark: Chill on the sneering because that usually earns a quick exit, as does giving credit to wacky theorists)


.