04-11-2012, 04:41 PM
If we just discuss the on-topic subject matter some are trying to avoid there is strong evidence in Piper that Israel was a strong main facilitator in the assassination and was one of the main benefactors as history has shown.
I agree with Phil that Israel was not the Sponsor. As Phil typically shows in his reference-dense style, there's too much evidence to show there were powers who had inherent vested interests beyond Israel that came well before the Ben-Gurion impasse. However this doesn't preclude the significance of the Echevarria comment or its relation to the assassination. Echevarria's comment also bears a seriously qualifying timing and weight as well. I think both Phil's and David's conspicuous avoidance of this proves its worth. No one has made any effort to answer the point that Piper has shown that any 'new backers' who were deep enough to show up one day prior to the assassination so deeply into the cabal and announce a need to get rid of Kennedy are people who could not be separated from that main cabal. As Piper shows that cabal undoubtedly included Israel according to the main funding structure and political solidarity that glued it together. Nor did anyone even touch the fact the funding backbone for that cabal was through those CIA/Tibor Rosenbaum/Lansky dirty money laundry banks. With this in mind it is seriously incriminating to have 'jew' interest voiced in "getting rid of Kennedy". David has tried to show how this wasn't meaningful, but anyone who has read and grasped Final Judgment would see how he utterly failed. Even better, in his typical manner of obscene reversal, David tries to say the fact this statement came only the day before the assassination weakens Piper's assertion. Just the opposite - the fact it came the day before the act was carried-out strengthens its meaning. It shows those "new jew backers" were serious and got what they wanted (Or at least were made to think so by the real Sponsors).
It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments. If you look at their input they don't answer the operative, on-topic evidence. In fact, it's kind of obvious that their effort is a means of getting around the fact they can't. To me, that is strong psychological evidence of the power of Piper's information forcing them into that whether they are consciously aware of it or not. The subject matter of this thread is Piper's book and the value of its information. It's pretty clear who is offering valid input towards that subject and who isn't. "If he speaks the truth he must be a witch" is somewhat silly isn't it? Isn't that in itself proof of Piper? I suggest that the advice of not participating in the cover-up apply to ALL information surrounding the assassination and not only that which is politically preferred. As Magda agreed, the subject of Israel makes some otherwise rational posters act irrationally. In my opinion they are the ones not acting like their normal selves. And I dare say the reason is the Israel bias that draws people off the normally called for objective standard of assassination evidence inspection.
As Piper correctly shows the Mediterranean underground and its connection to Israel is too documented and too right out there in the evidence to ignore as is the zionist interest of the main treasurers of the US syndicate. Yes these men were interested in Cuba, but only in the context of its inextricable connection to the cabal, as pointed-out in Piper. Treasurers are otherwise referred to as "Businessmen". Trying to label this 'vicious ad hominem' is an obvious avoidance of these more than established facts Piper exposes, in my humble real Deep Politics-respecting opinion.
I agree with Phil that Israel was not the Sponsor. As Phil typically shows in his reference-dense style, there's too much evidence to show there were powers who had inherent vested interests beyond Israel that came well before the Ben-Gurion impasse. However this doesn't preclude the significance of the Echevarria comment or its relation to the assassination. Echevarria's comment also bears a seriously qualifying timing and weight as well. I think both Phil's and David's conspicuous avoidance of this proves its worth. No one has made any effort to answer the point that Piper has shown that any 'new backers' who were deep enough to show up one day prior to the assassination so deeply into the cabal and announce a need to get rid of Kennedy are people who could not be separated from that main cabal. As Piper shows that cabal undoubtedly included Israel according to the main funding structure and political solidarity that glued it together. Nor did anyone even touch the fact the funding backbone for that cabal was through those CIA/Tibor Rosenbaum/Lansky dirty money laundry banks. With this in mind it is seriously incriminating to have 'jew' interest voiced in "getting rid of Kennedy". David has tried to show how this wasn't meaningful, but anyone who has read and grasped Final Judgment would see how he utterly failed. Even better, in his typical manner of obscene reversal, David tries to say the fact this statement came only the day before the assassination weakens Piper's assertion. Just the opposite - the fact it came the day before the act was carried-out strengthens its meaning. It shows those "new jew backers" were serious and got what they wanted (Or at least were made to think so by the real Sponsors).
It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments. If you look at their input they don't answer the operative, on-topic evidence. In fact, it's kind of obvious that their effort is a means of getting around the fact they can't. To me, that is strong psychological evidence of the power of Piper's information forcing them into that whether they are consciously aware of it or not. The subject matter of this thread is Piper's book and the value of its information. It's pretty clear who is offering valid input towards that subject and who isn't. "If he speaks the truth he must be a witch" is somewhat silly isn't it? Isn't that in itself proof of Piper? I suggest that the advice of not participating in the cover-up apply to ALL information surrounding the assassination and not only that which is politically preferred. As Magda agreed, the subject of Israel makes some otherwise rational posters act irrationally. In my opinion they are the ones not acting like their normal selves. And I dare say the reason is the Israel bias that draws people off the normally called for objective standard of assassination evidence inspection.
As Piper correctly shows the Mediterranean underground and its connection to Israel is too documented and too right out there in the evidence to ignore as is the zionist interest of the main treasurers of the US syndicate. Yes these men were interested in Cuba, but only in the context of its inextricable connection to the cabal, as pointed-out in Piper. Treasurers are otherwise referred to as "Businessmen". Trying to label this 'vicious ad hominem' is an obvious avoidance of these more than established facts Piper exposes, in my humble real Deep Politics-respecting opinion.