Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

I didn't say that Oswald was in the doorway. I've said repeatedly that I don't accept the question has been settled that it definitely was Lovelady. I've also stated that I have always thought this, long before Fetzer and Cinque came along, and that their study had no impact whatsoever on my views. That being said, both Mark and I, and you and Charles, and everyone else, has a right to their opinion.

I really don't get you these days, Don. First of all, go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say that you believe LHO was is the doorway. I understand--and, in fact, agree with you that--the matter has not been settled. Didn't you even READ what I wrote? Furthermore, I never said, implied, suggested or remotely hinted that their study influenced your view one iota, did I? I don't believe that anyone here has argued that anyone else has no right to their own opinion. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand this entire section of your post.

Of course, Charles has a right to protect the integrity of the forum. However, he seems to equate honest debate with disinformation. I find Piper's thesis interesting, if only for the fact he is the first one who postulated it. As I've noted, I don't think Israel pulled off the assassination by itself, or even was a primary mover. But that doesn't mean that JFK's arguments with them didn't contribute to the myriad of motivating factors that eventually culminated in Dallas.

That is your opinion and I have no argument with it irrespective of whether or not I agree with it.

I wonder if Charles has any idea how most of his posts sound, at least to me. I used to send private messages to Jim Fetzer, trying gingerly to tell him basically the same thing. Charles obviously knows a lot about this case, and I agree with him philosophically on most issues. But he just sounds so damn full of himself virtually every time he posts. Try a little self-deprecation. A little humility injected here or there. None of us know everything. Unless we were part of the conspirator's team, we just look ridiculous to act so cryptically, to infer that we alone have some secret knowledge.

I apologize if it looks like I'm just being overly critical. This is Charles' forum, and he has the right to run it the way he wants. But just as I believe many people didn't even bother to read the content of Jim Fetzer's post on the EF, because of their offensive style, I think that people here are going to miss the content in Charles' posts, because of a similar offensive style.

I'll leave the rest for Charles to reply if he so chooses.