Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

Unless you spent your life devising Cold War tactics of intelligence/counter-intelligence I do not believe it is possible to KNOW what layer of the onion we are looking at... That those involved in Cold War profiteering would have a huge stake in the death of JFK snf could have been part of it either willingly or be association.


That's all I meant.. Israel as false sponsor to keep the eyeballs looking in a different direction... as false sponsor story hat carries with it it's own insulation.. and just enough vague truths to snare those willing to accept it.

Thanks for that David. These are the two points I want to focus on.

In your first paragraph you are presupposing that JFK's death was a result of Cold War rivalries. That's what Angleton always said and I don't agree with this presumption.

As for the second, Israel has never been submitted as a false sponsor by those who planned the assassination, imo. They were not even suggested by anyone as playing a role in the assassination until the 1990's. If they are a false sponsor, cleverly planted by those who wish to muddy the trail, why did they wait thirty years to do so?

And therefore, is Piper guilty of planting a false sponsor? For what reason would he do this?

Three points FWIW:

1. I read David's "those involved in Cold War profiteering" NOT necessarily -- or even primarily -- as a reference to individuals commonly identified as Cold War "rivals." Indeed, as George Michael Evica and I, among others, have indicated, among the ranks of the highest level Facilitators in the JFK conspiracy and cover-up are intelligence and military officers whose "masters were above Cold War differences."

2. While the KNOWINGLY FALSE, cover-up-enhancing charge that Israelis were SPONSORS of the JFK conspiracy may not have surfaced publicly until the '90s, we have no way of knowing when the "Israel did it" card first was played far behind the scenes. Your charge that there was a 30-year delay before that play was made is without merit -- not to mention glaringly devoid of deep political insight.

3. Piper's motives in the aggregate stand as a valuable focus of inquiry. Why might he have facilitated a False Sponsor gambit? What were the factors that might account for the timing of his actions? Was/is he an LN? A conspirator? A patsy? Good questions.