19-10-2012, 05:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-10-2012, 07:26 PM by Albert Doyle.)
[quote=David Josephs]
As I said above - when YOU get to both ask and answer the questions, you don't need a conversation partner...
Sir, you are so taken by what Piper has told YOU, and you alone here in this conversation, that there is no discussion anymore... this is you Preaching from the Piper pulpit... hoping someone like me comes along so you can spout all your Piper knowledge... I see MANY OTHERS here have avoided you and this conversation...
Guess I need to learn.
When you repeatedly use phrases like - "WOULD be involved", "WOULD be kept from the plan" - to present your "facts" you are making assumptions - you do not have anything to support using the word "WILL" be involved, and "WILL" be in or out of the plan. You can only connect the group to the activity thru supposition. [/QUOTE]
Sorry David you're not going to be able to hijack the subject to that weak canard once again. The discussion here is about Piper and what he said and not about your obvious side tracks designed to get around it (for the fourth time now). Re-entering them with bluster doesn't change that. Simply put your input is visibly content-less towards Piper.
Another thing I've noticed over the years in internet debate. When a person starts analyzing semantics as their offering they are showing they can't answer the points and have no honest intention to do so. You'll find similar arguments from Cinque and Fetzer using that method. Pure sophistry vs Piper's facts. Your reference to some kind of undefined majority clashes with the content of what you offer.
[quote=David Josephs]You and Mr Piper simply do not know - there is a theory that fits the players... anti-semitism has kept this breakthru theory from being accepted mainstream... right?
We identify ONE GROUP that is probably tied to OTHER GROUPS who have ties to OTHER GROUPS who all want JFK dead.
So JFK dies. and everyone on this list benefits. [/QUOTE]
You're just re-entering the same stuff that has already been answered. It isn't working.
If you closely examine your paragraph above it doesn't answer anything nor does it change what was said. What's obvious here is your desperation to avoid that Piper might be right. Once again, that's what stands out the most here. It looks like a pathetic struggle to not admit what is obvious.
[quote=David Josephs]This is not "surgery to the top of the head" or "there was NO TRANSIT thru the shoulder"... this is you (& Piper) looking at the players and deciding who COULD do this, who MIGHT do this, who is in the best position to accomplish this... and coming to your conclusion....
Since the Mafia/CIA/Israel are all connected, AND Israel was miffed over the nuclear situation, AND the mafia wanted back into Cuba, AND the CIA did not want JFK and his brother to release them from their role, AND the JCS wanted to blow CUba off the planet along with Russia and anyone else, and the MIC/United Fruit wanted to play their games...
yet you conclude that ISRAEL was behind the killing of JFK.
You dont understand there are no absolutes in this case, that we can't KNOW, but only assume and support with authenticated and corrobrated evidence...
IF it went down as Piper said, then these people are key players and could have pulled it off....
No argument... [/QUOTE]
You're offering a regressive, primitive argument that is well below what was already established. Once again, if you go back and read the thread, I never said the things you attribute to me in your obvious strawman. You are answering your own arguments. This is a step back from what I had shown. It doesn't answer what was said but instead offers your spurious doubt as the main issue and then responds. My arguments offered Piper's evidence as the main issue and dealt directly with it. The fact you can't deal with, or directly answer, that evidence shows you are trying to avoid something. My arguments showed why support of Cuba was inseparable from support of Israel. You failed to answer why that wasn't so. What you offer is like a person who accused of robbing a bank who then walks you through a long description of bank robbery and all the evidence for their involvement but never quite gets to the point where they show they weren't involved. In police interrogations a person who repeats the question when asked is a person who shows signs of guilt. You, David, are basically repeating the question while never really getting around to answering it. When I read your entries it sounds like you are saying Israel was involved but Israel wasn't involved. And you attack my material?
[quote=David Josephs]Yet as you keep pushing, this is the ONLY WAY to see the assassination, that anyone looking at it differently or not accepting THIS explanation is plain wrong...
Keep up this POV and my guess no one will want to play with you anymore Albert - at least not on this subject -
so I hope you are not waiting for me to tell you how CORRECT you are... [/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand that I'm not playing. Did it ever dawn on you that the others aren't participating because they can't answer Piper's evidence? Otherwise your entry above is rubbish and never comes close to answering Piper's evidence.
[quote=David Josephs]When an entire community of people I respect do not give Piper the time of day....
and the one person who does support him insults me for discussing my OPINION based on the facts I've researched...
I'm not inclined to continue this conversation any longer... or any conversation where the other person writes off the questions asked by changing the subject and insulting the poster.
Take it or leave it Albert - this is my last post in this thread.... [/QUOTE]
I beg you to consider what some posters on this board would respond with if you tried that with another subject they were interested in. I think you're in denial that there is a strong pro-Israel bias and media control in America. As I said before, it is the nature of CIA to hide its doings behind such a reliable shield. You might think your evasive questions deserve respect. I, unfortunately, do not. And I'm not sure you realize your material above is classic of persons who are losing the debate.
[quote=David Josephs][If you read Echevarria comment he very definitely says that the new backing is dependent on Kennedy's killing
/QUOTE]
Again... your interpretation...
"we now have plenty of money.... our new backers are jews... as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy.....
You have no idea HOW this was said OR what was meant... but you and Piper and others have IDEAS... very nice Albert, yet your ideas of what things mean is not
the only way to see them... sorry to burst your self importance bubble [/QUOTE]
" Self-importance bubble "??? I'm sorry David, I believe I adequately challenged you via the facts to show how they couldn't not be involved. Forgive me if I think the obvious evasive input above doesn't quite answer that. You've succeeded in setting-up the quagmire above, but it doesn't nearly answer Piper's facts and evidence. What stands out the most is your reckless willingness to avoid the chance that Piper might right. We've heard your excuses. In the end they haven't disproven Piper's theory.
[quote=David Josephs]Sir... reading again thru your response...
[QUOTE][What pisses me off about you David, is no matter how many times it is explained to you you refuse to even recognize that, according to the unholy underground relationship CIA had to both Israel, the mob, and Cuba, there was no difference in acting in favor of any separate one. Until you understand and register the Lansky/Rosenbaum/Israel cabal Piper explains you simply can't validly participate in any discussion of it. Especially in relation to Echevarria. CIA was directly in control and receiving kickbacks from that relationship. The same CIA that was directly involved in the assassination.
/QUOTE]
Oh I understand it and register it just fine Albert... I'm simply not a Piper disciple like you are... You've come to your conclusion and you defend it... fine.
Sell it to someone else please... I'll be dropping from this thread as I simply cannot discuss this with you - you are so closed to anything that challenges or even questions Piper - you've lost the ability to behave with respect and make an argument that includes EVIDENCE, not WOULD OF's and COULD OF's.... and "IF"[/QUOTE]
I'll present this a pure example of your contempt for Piper's fact-based arguments. While accusing me of not entertaining your obvious evasions what stands out the most here is your refusal to recognize or address even the most basic aspects of this scenario. What I wrote above is correct and provable in Kennedy assassination conspiracy facts. Facts and reasonable conclusions your material above obviously seeks to avoid. Don't worry David, you'll win this one no matter what you enter. And that's the main reason I'm interested in it. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get away with what you've gotten away with here on any other subject.
.
As I said above - when YOU get to both ask and answer the questions, you don't need a conversation partner...
Sir, you are so taken by what Piper has told YOU, and you alone here in this conversation, that there is no discussion anymore... this is you Preaching from the Piper pulpit... hoping someone like me comes along so you can spout all your Piper knowledge... I see MANY OTHERS here have avoided you and this conversation...
Guess I need to learn.
When you repeatedly use phrases like - "WOULD be involved", "WOULD be kept from the plan" - to present your "facts" you are making assumptions - you do not have anything to support using the word "WILL" be involved, and "WILL" be in or out of the plan. You can only connect the group to the activity thru supposition. [/QUOTE]
Sorry David you're not going to be able to hijack the subject to that weak canard once again. The discussion here is about Piper and what he said and not about your obvious side tracks designed to get around it (for the fourth time now). Re-entering them with bluster doesn't change that. Simply put your input is visibly content-less towards Piper.
Another thing I've noticed over the years in internet debate. When a person starts analyzing semantics as their offering they are showing they can't answer the points and have no honest intention to do so. You'll find similar arguments from Cinque and Fetzer using that method. Pure sophistry vs Piper's facts. Your reference to some kind of undefined majority clashes with the content of what you offer.
[quote=David Josephs]You and Mr Piper simply do not know - there is a theory that fits the players... anti-semitism has kept this breakthru theory from being accepted mainstream... right?
We identify ONE GROUP that is probably tied to OTHER GROUPS who have ties to OTHER GROUPS who all want JFK dead.
So JFK dies. and everyone on this list benefits. [/QUOTE]
You're just re-entering the same stuff that has already been answered. It isn't working.
If you closely examine your paragraph above it doesn't answer anything nor does it change what was said. What's obvious here is your desperation to avoid that Piper might be right. Once again, that's what stands out the most here. It looks like a pathetic struggle to not admit what is obvious.
[quote=David Josephs]This is not "surgery to the top of the head" or "there was NO TRANSIT thru the shoulder"... this is you (& Piper) looking at the players and deciding who COULD do this, who MIGHT do this, who is in the best position to accomplish this... and coming to your conclusion....
Since the Mafia/CIA/Israel are all connected, AND Israel was miffed over the nuclear situation, AND the mafia wanted back into Cuba, AND the CIA did not want JFK and his brother to release them from their role, AND the JCS wanted to blow CUba off the planet along with Russia and anyone else, and the MIC/United Fruit wanted to play their games...
yet you conclude that ISRAEL was behind the killing of JFK.
You dont understand there are no absolutes in this case, that we can't KNOW, but only assume and support with authenticated and corrobrated evidence...
IF it went down as Piper said, then these people are key players and could have pulled it off....
No argument... [/QUOTE]
You're offering a regressive, primitive argument that is well below what was already established. Once again, if you go back and read the thread, I never said the things you attribute to me in your obvious strawman. You are answering your own arguments. This is a step back from what I had shown. It doesn't answer what was said but instead offers your spurious doubt as the main issue and then responds. My arguments offered Piper's evidence as the main issue and dealt directly with it. The fact you can't deal with, or directly answer, that evidence shows you are trying to avoid something. My arguments showed why support of Cuba was inseparable from support of Israel. You failed to answer why that wasn't so. What you offer is like a person who accused of robbing a bank who then walks you through a long description of bank robbery and all the evidence for their involvement but never quite gets to the point where they show they weren't involved. In police interrogations a person who repeats the question when asked is a person who shows signs of guilt. You, David, are basically repeating the question while never really getting around to answering it. When I read your entries it sounds like you are saying Israel was involved but Israel wasn't involved. And you attack my material?
[quote=David Josephs]Yet as you keep pushing, this is the ONLY WAY to see the assassination, that anyone looking at it differently or not accepting THIS explanation is plain wrong...
Keep up this POV and my guess no one will want to play with you anymore Albert - at least not on this subject -
so I hope you are not waiting for me to tell you how CORRECT you are... [/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand that I'm not playing. Did it ever dawn on you that the others aren't participating because they can't answer Piper's evidence? Otherwise your entry above is rubbish and never comes close to answering Piper's evidence.
[quote=David Josephs]When an entire community of people I respect do not give Piper the time of day....
and the one person who does support him insults me for discussing my OPINION based on the facts I've researched...
I'm not inclined to continue this conversation any longer... or any conversation where the other person writes off the questions asked by changing the subject and insulting the poster.
Take it or leave it Albert - this is my last post in this thread.... [/QUOTE]
I beg you to consider what some posters on this board would respond with if you tried that with another subject they were interested in. I think you're in denial that there is a strong pro-Israel bias and media control in America. As I said before, it is the nature of CIA to hide its doings behind such a reliable shield. You might think your evasive questions deserve respect. I, unfortunately, do not. And I'm not sure you realize your material above is classic of persons who are losing the debate.
[quote=David Josephs][If you read Echevarria comment he very definitely says that the new backing is dependent on Kennedy's killing
/QUOTE]
Again... your interpretation...
"we now have plenty of money.... our new backers are jews... as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy.....
You have no idea HOW this was said OR what was meant... but you and Piper and others have IDEAS... very nice Albert, yet your ideas of what things mean is not
the only way to see them... sorry to burst your self importance bubble [/QUOTE]
" Self-importance bubble "??? I'm sorry David, I believe I adequately challenged you via the facts to show how they couldn't not be involved. Forgive me if I think the obvious evasive input above doesn't quite answer that. You've succeeded in setting-up the quagmire above, but it doesn't nearly answer Piper's facts and evidence. What stands out the most is your reckless willingness to avoid the chance that Piper might right. We've heard your excuses. In the end they haven't disproven Piper's theory.
[quote=David Josephs]Sir... reading again thru your response...
[QUOTE][What pisses me off about you David, is no matter how many times it is explained to you you refuse to even recognize that, according to the unholy underground relationship CIA had to both Israel, the mob, and Cuba, there was no difference in acting in favor of any separate one. Until you understand and register the Lansky/Rosenbaum/Israel cabal Piper explains you simply can't validly participate in any discussion of it. Especially in relation to Echevarria. CIA was directly in control and receiving kickbacks from that relationship. The same CIA that was directly involved in the assassination.
/QUOTE]
Oh I understand it and register it just fine Albert... I'm simply not a Piper disciple like you are... You've come to your conclusion and you defend it... fine.
Sell it to someone else please... I'll be dropping from this thread as I simply cannot discuss this with you - you are so closed to anything that challenges or even questions Piper - you've lost the ability to behave with respect and make an argument that includes EVIDENCE, not WOULD OF's and COULD OF's.... and "IF"[/QUOTE]
I'll present this a pure example of your contempt for Piper's fact-based arguments. While accusing me of not entertaining your obvious evasions what stands out the most here is your refusal to recognize or address even the most basic aspects of this scenario. What I wrote above is correct and provable in Kennedy assassination conspiracy facts. Facts and reasonable conclusions your material above obviously seeks to avoid. Don't worry David, you'll win this one no matter what you enter. And that's the main reason I'm interested in it. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get away with what you've gotten away with here on any other subject.
.