Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

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.

While I agree with this in general because of what I have learned about the Deep Political model, I would caution not to throw out the baby with Deep Political bath water and realize the circumstantial scenario Piper isolates may be evidence of when that play happened whether Piper incorrectly described it in Sponsor terms or not. As I've always said from the beginning Piper is valuable because I believe he shows a main facilitator that many resent being exposed. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out on a Deep Political basis in my opinion.

I also totally agree with Mark in his citing of David's errors (that some appear to be comfortable with while pointing out the errors of Piper with a microtome). David is obviously attempting to gloss over issues that deserve closer and more accurate treatment. You cannot answer the matter of Ben-Gurion's behavior by saying "Israel was getting the bomb anyway," or "Israel always says its future existence is threatened." I think most in here know how that would be treated by these same persons if the other side attempted it.