Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Greg Burnham]

"Albert Doyle" pretends to not have the time to present actual evidence in support of "his" claims, yet has the time to write a rather lengthy reply below! "He" then has the belligerence to accuse Phil Dragoo of being "wholly dishonest" even though Phil has a track record of being one the most honest brokers on the DPF! In a fraction of the time that it took to write the reply below an honest broker would have been able to post an excerpt or even simply identify the page number(s) in the book that support his assertions.

This is a blown Cointelpro-like Operation. I shall refer to the joint Doyle/Stapleton Operation henceforth as: CARTMAN

That's good poetry Phil but it's nowhere close to the facts. If we cracked open Piper (which I'm not going to do because I don't have the time) you would see Piper present a very well-detailed body of evidence to back his assertions (add faulty sponsorship claim disclaimer here). It is much more complex and valid than your obviously politically-motivated dismissal. So much so that I would say you were the one committing the errors of bias much more than Piper. As long as people are willing to deal with this at the level of pissing contest it only shows what they are trying to avoid, in my opinion. There's a much better conversation about Piper that is deliberately being avoided here. I find that wholly dishonest.

For people who argue honestly in the real world David entered false information he got backwards and ended up abandoning his arguments. The rest of his material is basically identical to what Lone Nutters do to the conspiracy evidence. There's a basic smell test here that hasn't been passed. That is, would Mosley or Echevarria be likely to have made-up this claim out of nowhere or somehow gotten it wrong? These protests appear as evasive and assuming the long-odds. That's sort of what McAdams and Lone Nutters do. All you have to do to judge these protests is see how they never discuss the Swiss banks or the Lansky/zionist connections to them. People honestly looking in to this would see that network is real and confirmed and has some undeniable conclusions associated with it. It's those conclusions that give Piper credibility and also deny credibility to those who ignore them so freely and for such obvious purposes themselves.

I find it very unlikely and very unbelievable that either Mosley or Echevarria somehow reported their experiences inaccurately. Since some are trying too hard to make that the case I think that says enough. There's a dedicated incuriosity that is more than plain and I'm not sure that Piper is the one guilty of the extreme bias here. In my opinion the flak being thrown up here hasn't overcome the objective verifiability of much of the information Piper presents. The best the opposition can do is heckle and question otherwise obvious things. The suggestion that somehow Echevarria got the "new jew backers" wrong is something that doesn't survive the common sense smell test. I'd like to see the explanation of the people who doubt that for why Echevarria would say such a thing or Mosley would report it inaccurately? This is obvious excuse-making. Any honest deep political investigator would see Piper makes a much greater case using all the evidence that the protestors universally ignore in these threads and therefore dismiss their own credibility.