Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[David Josephs]

Greg,

RE this:

Because you sure are acting like some pretty crafty operators here.

On page 58/#580, David Josephs says this:

How you can give this person ANY intellectual credibility when people like MOSLEY go unresearched, and GLADIO does not play in discussions of PERMINDEX
is, to me, absurd and requires more than the deflecting posts offered.

It doesn't take long before MS, is demanding to know what Gladio has to do with JFK assassination, as if this were the position, and fawning helplessness. 'What am I suppossed to do? Work me on this?'

My reading of this thread is that David Josephs introduced Gladio to the Permindex discussions to show the inadequacy of Mosely's analysis saying in so many words, 'it's so bad that he does not even mention Gladio.' It's obvious to a non-expert reader such as myself that Stapleton is pretending to be a partner to a conversation. That he is not. He is indeed an operator.

He should be put on moderation in lieu of being ignored which isn't going to happen. This shit has been going on for months.

Hi Lauren...

Appreciate the recap... I only post as the references you made suggest you don't see who Mosley is in this story... "Mosely's analysis saying in so many words..."

I submit that Piper relied on:

1) a report from informant 2-1-266,
2) THAT HE HEARD THAT one Thomas Mosley, (Which means 2-1-266 did not hear this FROM Mosley)
3) who ALLEGEDLY was in the process of selling weapons to Homer Echevarria - an anti-Castro Cuban member of an opposition group who's contact was "Mannie"
4) that Homer ALLEGEDLY made a comment on the 21st of Nov....... (does 2-1-66 hear this or Mosley?)
5) that "we now have plenty of money, our new backers are Jews, as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy..."

as the basis for his book and conclusion, and the sum total of the evidence offered in defense of said conclusion.


http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=335994

Keep reading the report... the sheer obviousness of what the comment - if even made, ever - that it's in relation to the taking back of Cuba....

Lauren - you nailed it.

Cheers
DJ
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR="class: tr1"]
[TD="class: td1, colspan: 2"]allegedly
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr2"]
[TD="class: td2, colspan: 2"] adv
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr3"]
[TD="class: td3n1, width: 1%, align: right"]1.
[/TD]
[TD="class: td3n2"]reportedly; supposedly: payments allegedly made to a former colleague
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr3"]
[TD="class: td3n1, width: 1%, align: right"]2.
[/TD]
[TD="class: td3n2"]( sentence modifier ) it is alleged that
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr2"]
[TD="class: td2, colspan: 2"] interj
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr3"]
[TD="class: td3n1, width: 1%, align: right"]3.
[/TD]
[TD="class: td3n2"]an exclamation expressing disbelief or scepticism
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]