Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,

I think David was initially open to at least considering Piper's thesis. Imho, he dug his feet in here in response to your aggressive, confrontational style. Read his earlier posts on this thread. I don't think he was outright dismissive to what Piper was saying.

He never quite got around to admitting what he did commit to Don. No offense but if we need a debate sensitivity counselor we'll call for one. Right now we're just dealing with the hard facts.

I think Piper has been give short shrift by the JFK assassination research community, almost certainly because of the fact he makes Israel out to be the driving force behind JFK's murder. I emailed Piper a few times way back when, urging him to join the forums and defend himself. I think he did do that, on a forum I wasn't posting on at that point, and I guess he just was frustrated by the lynch mob against him and is reluctant to go through that again.

I e-mailed him too. He's his own worst enemy because I agree he would definitely be the best defender of his own material. I don't have time to go back and re-read Final Judgment that I read 5 years ago. He's probably said his piece and doesn't want to offer any neck to be chopped, which, as this thread shows, is the pre-determined outcome of any and all discussions of the subject.

Just to make it clear I think Piper is wrong in his suggestion Ben-Gurion was the initiating sponsor of the assassination. Any lengthy reading of Assassination websites will show the conspiracy was already well-along before Ben-Gurion got involved. I think he was enlisted as a main facilitator and person who would lend cooperation to the cover-up in league with the American conspirators and their post-assassination intentions.

It's tough because it is like defending the involvement of Johnson while rejecting any "Mastermind" theories on the basis of Deep Politics. If you observe David he dishonestly takes advantage of this by deliberately putting Ben-Gurion mastermind words in my mouth he knows I have already clearly disclaimed. It's the facilitator evidence I am discussing.

I think JFK's tough stance against Israel's burgeoning nuclear program could have been a contributing factor to his death, but I seriously doubt it was the main reason. Even if he'd been just as friendly to Israel as LBJ and all the other presidents after him, I still think he would have been killed, for all the other things he was doing to rattle the establishment.

Like David, you've answered an argument I haven't made in this thread. The main strength of Piper's thesis is its exposing the Lansky Swiss bank underground that CIA's main funding sources were all deeply tied to, including the French Connection. This explains why the Texas police could be waiting at the docks for an arriving ship and not be able to capture a suspect. The ties to this are much deeper than people realize and they have to do with this cabal. The fact it doesn't appear in these post-criticisms speaks for the lack of validity of the opposing arguments. The "new jew backers" were operating under the interest that Israel would directly benefit by their participation in the assassination. Something David never registers in his offerings and serves as a fatal detriment to that which he enters. He tries to get away with saying the new jew backers he indirectly admits, but never commits to, were only interested in Cuba...