Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments.

At the continued risk of being accused of participating in a witch hunt: This post is DIRECTLY out of the Fetzer book of idioms, syntax, and rhetoric.

Without question. Especially the charge quoted above -- which we've seen from Fetzer countless times in his defenses of the indefensible Phillip Nelson, Robert Morrow, and Ralph Cinque.

So here's my offer, "Albert" -- Admit that "you" have allowed at least one other person to post over "your" name and identify him/her/them (whether or not Jim Fetzer is among those for whom you are wearing a beard), and I'll do my best to convince my DPF partners to allow you to maintain posting privileges.

But if, "Albert," you insist upon continuing this blown operation, "you" will be held in contempt for being a deceitful, dishonorable man.

Have "you" no shame, "sir?"

This debate is clearly ruled by the evidence some are obviously avoiding.


Fetzer offers crazy illusions based on an egotistical need to be the conspiracy-exposer who breaks the case. I'm not sure that he either cracked under pressure or had some new high tech mind control done on him. Either way you can prove Fetzer is uncredible through abstract analysis of his Depository doorstep evidence. Myself I say proof of Piper's validity (albeit partial) is the fact some are desperate to force this contrived issue in front of obvious evidence they can't answer. The reason Fetzer is dangerous is because he uses high logical arguments to claim persecution over credible claims when in fact his claims are uncredible. As I said before, if there's a challenge of credibility here let it be by the facts. I say any objective viewing of the thread will show who has 'honor' behind their position and who doesn't. Let this be by the facts gentlemen. I see this as an issue of political correctness in regard to the evidence behind the assassination. I believe the Deep Political aspects have been thoroughly explained so therefore no suggested Deep Politics violation has occurred. On the other hand I think perhaps the pronounced resentment against assisting the cover-up might not win the same ruling since what I believe to be very valid evidence of Israel's facilitator role is being violently opposed by some members. Isn't draconian dismissal of that facilitator role a type of assistance in the cover-up?

May I dare say that true "democracy" is one where the vote can go against the government. Where threats of banishment for offering reasonable proof can be overturned. Where labelling someone as being like other dubious theorists isn't good enough against reasonably sound arguments. Arguments that that "government" has clearly not answered. Demonization is no answer to facts. Let those facts be the rule here and let those who directly address them be heard.

Non-responsive.

Who are "you"?