15-03-2018, 06:41 PM
In response to a direct query of me on a post by David Josephs on 3-14-18, the question is asked whether I support the book Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper? I can reply to this by saying that his book has proven valuable to me in my research, but I believe 95% of it is of no use to the researcher and is mostly a "kitchen sink" full of innuendo about Israel and Jewish involvement in the assassination. This collection of innuendo is an interesting study in itself and is unique, so that makes it somewhat valuable.
I am tremendously indebted to author Piper for two reasons in particular:
Since author Piper had the unique information about Frankhouser and Frankhouser was the head of security for LaRouche, that in itself could explain a lot. The main drift would be that Piper was promoting the same disinformation as LaRouche. In the book by King, author King shows how LaRouche would salt his disinformation with accusations against only two entities. One is Israel and "Zionists" (or Henry Kissinger, he being a prominent Jewish person) and, two, the British Monarchy.
This pattern of disinformation could have been actual policy of the US Intel community. It could explain all the frequent mention of Sir William Stephenson, Montego Bay Jamaica, Major Louis Bloomfield, the Bronfman family, Bank Leumi of Israel, Tibor Rosenbaum, etc. etc.
Since you reproduce a portion of the book The Bomb In The Basement-How Israel Went Nuclear by Michael Karpin, I can tell you that I read Karpin's book fairly carefully, much more carefully than my reading of Piper's book.
It seems to me that anyone who reads and considers the Karpin book would realize that the Israeli Atom Bomb project was on an entirely different time schedule than JFK's presidency. The Israelies were aided in their development of the bomb by partnering with France in France's A-Bomb program. Although the US Government did not necessarily like nuclear proliferation, they made no attempt to halt the program of either France or Israel. The US would have had more reason to interfere with the French bomb than the Israeli Bomb, but they didn't really care about either.
I feel lucky in that I have (in my own mind) reached a level of understanding that I can actually apply a legal standard to test whether someone is a JFK assassination suspect. The question has to be asked "if a conspiracy revolving around Oswald actually went to trial, would the suspect be convicted as being a member of the conspiracy?" To qualify, the person would have to do some specific act to further the conspiracy or to help to further the cover-up BEFORE THE CRIMINAL ACT.
Unfortunately, the test often used by even the best authors (even like Dr. Jeffrey Caufield in "General Walker…) is the McCarthy-Nixon style "guilt by association." Although people instinctively buy the theory of "guilt by association" because it's human nature, this theory of causation based on association only just interferes with accurate analysis of the evidence.
That is why I can't accept any theory involving James J Angleton as a perpetrator. According to my best research, Angleton was not respected by his fellow Agents and most CIA sources regard Angleton as just "warming a chair" at the CIA. Further, he is described as (basically) suffering from a THOUGHT DISORDER. According to what I have read, if you asked Angleton a question, his mind would go off on a tangent and never return.
The same problem occurs with Major Bloomfield. No matter how close of friends he was with J Edgar Hoover or General Julius Klein (of Sonneborg), what actual act did Bloomfield do in relationship to the assassination and why would his services be required?
I can't come up with an answer to that type of inquiry regarding either Angleton or Bloomfield. I have a database on an Excel spreadsheet of 1500 names mentioned frequently in 30 JFK books. When you work with that large of a database, you realize you have to do some narrowing. It's that process of narrowing which is very instructive in itself. That's why I haven't seen any other published hypothetical organizational charts for the JFK plot besides my own (primitive) chart which I just threw together using Excel.
To anyone who has a decades-long history of research on JFK, I would recommend the exercise of trying to draw up a chart of the plot and how it would work. For my own research, I will probably next try to get a book on "The Law of Conspiracy". That type of mechanical analysis is probably necessary to really (even roughly) solve the JFK case (if it ever be totally solved???).
I am tremendously indebted to author Piper for two reasons in particular:
- Piper prints the fact in Final Judgment that the NSA agent and informant Roy Frankhouser claimed to have been sponsored by the NSA in his active part in the JFK assassination. I have never seen this in any other JFK assassination book, but the involvement of Frankhouser can be corroborated from other sources, especially in the book "One More Victim" by Rosenthal and Gelb. They document the close involvement between Frankhouser and Nazi Dan Burroughs. There is also much more information about Frankhouser in the book Lyndon La Rouche and the New American Fascism by Dennis King.
- On a blog posting, Michael Collins Piper stated that the biographer of Otto Otepka, William J. Gill, was married to Countess Mechtilde Podewils, who was probably the most sensational ex-Nazi operative in the world during the 1960's in America OR in the world. This is especially true if you consider the entire picture of her history as a spy and her marriage to the Buckley-connected Gill.
Since author Piper had the unique information about Frankhouser and Frankhouser was the head of security for LaRouche, that in itself could explain a lot. The main drift would be that Piper was promoting the same disinformation as LaRouche. In the book by King, author King shows how LaRouche would salt his disinformation with accusations against only two entities. One is Israel and "Zionists" (or Henry Kissinger, he being a prominent Jewish person) and, two, the British Monarchy.
This pattern of disinformation could have been actual policy of the US Intel community. It could explain all the frequent mention of Sir William Stephenson, Montego Bay Jamaica, Major Louis Bloomfield, the Bronfman family, Bank Leumi of Israel, Tibor Rosenbaum, etc. etc.
Since you reproduce a portion of the book The Bomb In The Basement-How Israel Went Nuclear by Michael Karpin, I can tell you that I read Karpin's book fairly carefully, much more carefully than my reading of Piper's book.
It seems to me that anyone who reads and considers the Karpin book would realize that the Israeli Atom Bomb project was on an entirely different time schedule than JFK's presidency. The Israelies were aided in their development of the bomb by partnering with France in France's A-Bomb program. Although the US Government did not necessarily like nuclear proliferation, they made no attempt to halt the program of either France or Israel. The US would have had more reason to interfere with the French bomb than the Israeli Bomb, but they didn't really care about either.
I feel lucky in that I have (in my own mind) reached a level of understanding that I can actually apply a legal standard to test whether someone is a JFK assassination suspect. The question has to be asked "if a conspiracy revolving around Oswald actually went to trial, would the suspect be convicted as being a member of the conspiracy?" To qualify, the person would have to do some specific act to further the conspiracy or to help to further the cover-up BEFORE THE CRIMINAL ACT.
Unfortunately, the test often used by even the best authors (even like Dr. Jeffrey Caufield in "General Walker…) is the McCarthy-Nixon style "guilt by association." Although people instinctively buy the theory of "guilt by association" because it's human nature, this theory of causation based on association only just interferes with accurate analysis of the evidence.
That is why I can't accept any theory involving James J Angleton as a perpetrator. According to my best research, Angleton was not respected by his fellow Agents and most CIA sources regard Angleton as just "warming a chair" at the CIA. Further, he is described as (basically) suffering from a THOUGHT DISORDER. According to what I have read, if you asked Angleton a question, his mind would go off on a tangent and never return.
The same problem occurs with Major Bloomfield. No matter how close of friends he was with J Edgar Hoover or General Julius Klein (of Sonneborg), what actual act did Bloomfield do in relationship to the assassination and why would his services be required?
I can't come up with an answer to that type of inquiry regarding either Angleton or Bloomfield. I have a database on an Excel spreadsheet of 1500 names mentioned frequently in 30 JFK books. When you work with that large of a database, you realize you have to do some narrowing. It's that process of narrowing which is very instructive in itself. That's why I haven't seen any other published hypothetical organizational charts for the JFK plot besides my own (primitive) chart which I just threw together using Excel.
To anyone who has a decades-long history of research on JFK, I would recommend the exercise of trying to draw up a chart of the plot and how it would work. For my own research, I will probably next try to get a book on "The Law of Conspiracy". That type of mechanical analysis is probably necessary to really (even roughly) solve the JFK case (if it ever be totally solved???).