Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Regarding Echevarria, his link to DRE which, under Joannides' guidance, misdirected attention to Oswald the anti-Castro Communist will show, such comments present as disinformation creating yet another false sponsor.

Joannides was the CIA gatekeeper preventing Gaeton Fonzi, Ed Lopez, and Dan Hardaway from accessing truly pertinent information.

That Joannides hovers over this Echevarria misdirection is highly indicative it is of no value save further demonstrating the coverup.

Of course, we also have Jack Ruby revealing that he'd killed Oswald to show Jews had guts.

Piper's proposition of a "final judgment" is a seven-hundred-seventy-one-page bridge too far with a tasteless title.

His false sponsor is no more convincing than that of Zirbel-McClellan-Nelson and Larry Flynt's red-headed stepchild.

Nor the lukewarm creamed corn of the Waldron cauldron.

Which is why I've repeatedly said I'm not impressed by it either. In fact, until I had read the material on this site I might have bought Piper's Sponsor theory not knowing better.

Joannides might have known that offering the Echevarria bait might draw the very response that's happened here against those who pursue it. Israel is a very safe entity to expose because, as is shown here, there's absolutely no chance of ever getting traction in any evidence against it. Israel is an extension of CIA. That relationship had two points of origin. The first was the near identical birth date of both entities. The second was the Kennedy assassination. Both of which are probably the best disprovers of Sponsorship, if you get what I mean. Look at Joannides himself - he's just as traction-proof. Such universal impunity has very little worth as far as judging evidence, since all forms of evidence share the same level of impunity. The Liberty is the epitome of unspeakable Israel/CIA impunity.

There's no doubt the title Final Judgment is a deliberate veiled reference to "Final Solution". Though I beg to differ with you over its appropriateness, considering. There's no doubt Israel had a hand in the assassination Phil. Piper's evidence is a true reflection of the non-Sponsor role Israel did have. I would counter that Piper's critics' complete avoidance of the Lansky/Rosenbaum network is actually more indicative of what is being avoided. We're all talking the same thing here. Mark might do well by learning the Drago/Evica model.

Upon reflection it occurs another confidential informant to another intelligence agency reported Ruby in Tel Aviv masquerading as an NKVD officer--

--a false sponsor two-fer: Jew, Soviet

This doesn't really matter according to what was already shown.

By the time we get to Nagell the opposition didn't want the plot to succeed
That's if we take Nagell's account as describing a legitimate recruitment rather than another false-flag misdirection



LBJ-Jews-Mob-Soviets



Eyed buy THAT for a dollar

This doesn't exclude Israeli involvement or their incentives Phil. Isn't repeated rejection of the Sponsor claim (which I agree with) another way of admitting the strong facilitator role of Israel in the assassination? Phil, who else is pointing this out but Piper? Are you saying we should throw out the baby with the bath-water of Israel's facilitator role just because Piper overreached? Sure, let's publicly reject Piper's Sponsor claims just like Waldron and Nelson - but let's not throw-out Piper's strong evidence of facilitator in the process. So far, Piper's the only one I've seen bravely exposing it. I don't think you realize Echevarria's connection to DRE was exposed deliberately as part of a plausibly deniable false flag, as you say, whose purpose was to conceal Israel's true role and motive. David takes this bait and runs with it. People examining the evidence in a more sophisticated/honest manner see the true way it was intended. Let's apply some real Deep Politics here gentlemen.

There could be another reason for Joannides' attention to Echevarria. They could have been highly concerned that this evidence was too far out into public knowledge and needed some damage control from a strong inside source. Remember Phil, Joannides was seen at the time as a pro-conspiracy HSCA member. You are referring to him in a manner that was not applicable at the time he was doing what you say. More likely Joannides was deliberately steering Echevarria towards Cuba in order to steer him away from Israel. The fact David tries the same trick is what is indicative here. They did the same with Bobby too. They tried to paint him as being the hottest proactive anti-Castro planner.