Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[David Josephs]

Why my good man David. You haven't answered the questions.



1) Why did the Israelis brick-over the elevator at Dimona for Kennedy's inspectors?


2) Would Kennedy's bold call for a nuclear ban treaty at American University in June 1963 make it more likely or less likely that Israel would be included? Would it be likely that JFK's being in a tense negotiation with Ben-Gurion over Israel's attempt to develop nuclear weapons at the time was not a source of Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown? Or that it wasn't caused by Kennedy introducing this edict? Or even better, that Ben-Gurion's breakdown itself was caused by his being approached to join-in on the removal of Kennedy? That Kennedy would make the unprecedented step of calling for the cessation of further nuclear weapons and not include Israel with whom he was having a major conflict at the time over their nuclear weapons?

Amazingly perceptive of you Albert... you're right... I am ignoring your questions as they are, in YOUR mind, rhetorical and therefore not worth the time or effort.
How many "WOULD's" and "COULD's" and "More likely" versus "less likely"'s can you throw into a statement and keep expecting it to be considered a supported conclusion??



You sound like a WCR lawyer asking questions...

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I
shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an
opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm.
copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of
approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to
250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of
declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper
right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm.
from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right
mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones,
traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior
portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the
pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising
the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right
side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea
causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you
have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be
true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be
consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?

So, would a wound EXITING THE THROAT be considered an EXIT WOUND - under THOSE circumstances?

:thumbsup:


Your incredulous and condescending tone for Q2 above is indicative of your entire presentation on this thread.... It's cute and all, to speculate as you are in doing that question...
but ASKING the question does not qualify the answer.... that's called tautology

Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct


The FACT of the matter is JFK had little if any effect on developing Israel's Dimona reactor because Israel felt that their needs were more important than the needs of the world/region/allies... THAT is plain to see from what has been posted...


By June of 1963 Dimona was in full operation - JFK was not having the least bit of an effect on the producing of a nuclear weapon all the while BG is lying to its closest ally and friend IN THE WORLD...
but that charade could not be why BG breaks down... or the idea that if it became known to the US, the US would expose the lie and create all sorts of havoc in the middle east by the hands of BG, not JFK.

"The Dimona reactor became active some time between 1962 and 1964, and with the plutonium produced there the Israel Defense Forces most probably had their first nuclear weapons ready before the Six-Day War. When the United States intelligence community discovered the purpose of the site in the early 1960s, the U.S. government demanded that Israel agree to international inspections. Israel agreed, but on the condition that U.S., rather than International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors be used, and that Israel would receive advance notice of all inspections. Israel is one of only three nations thought to possess nuclear weapons never to have signed the NPT ( others are India and Pakistan )."


I have to thank you though for exposing this joke for further scrutiny... I've known the players and knew their stories for many years and had never heard how Sy Hersh found out what no other researcher or historian or close Kennedy advisor/author found out about Israel.... and Sy, being such a credible source (sarcasm alert !!!) how can we do anything but accept his being privy to something no one on the planet can coroborrate... or has ever mentioned...

By now Albert...
you can have the final word as I'll be disconnecting from this travesty of research
and DVP/VB-like responses, "How could you be so stoopid as to NOT understand and accept this as the truth.... nothing else makes sense and you're a maroon for even trying"