Bloody Treason: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[Keith Millea]

I don't know how people who totally avoided the discussion of the evidence have a right to later come in and condemn it.

What a load of bullshit that is Albert.This is an open forum where any member can add their own perspective anytime they want to.Maybe you should apply for moderator status if you want to limit peoples ability to post,eh?

[Charles Drago]

I don't know how people who totally avoided the discussion of the evidence have a right to later come in and condemn it.

What a load of bullshit that is Albert.This is an open forum where any member can add their own perspective anytime they want to.Maybe you should apply for moderator status if you want to limit peoples ability to post,eh?

There can be no doubt that "bullshit" is what this "Albert" herein peddles. The only uncertainty: Which "Albert" is doing the peddling?

[David Josephs]

Piper was discredited at the EF years ago.

I suppose in the same way David Josephs discredited it here. Hmm...

David Josephs did a far better job of discrediting it than either you or Mark (or Paper) did of proving any Israel sponsorship.

I don't think you're following what I wrote Magda. I clearly stated I did not believe in sponsorship but that the remaining evidence was very solid proof of main facilitation. I don't know how people who totally avoided the discussion of the evidence have a right to later come in and condemn it.

David, on the other hand, had his facts completely wrong to the point where they blew up on him and he was forced to leave the thread. Those facts showed JFK had drastically cut the Israel budget in a move similar to his American University inclinations a month prior to the new backers being declared in Dallas.

Sir(s),

You've been asked repeatedly to simply provide the text within Piper's book that most convinces you of his conclusions...

You've offered nothing. Repeatedly.

The number of times Piper calims, "the evidence stands on its own" is comical to the point of absurd.

I've been here the entire time Albert(s)... and have gone back thru Piper's book to find such statements.
They don't exist.

He builds a case on the imaginary conflicts he creates between JFK and BG.
He SUPPOSES connections that don't exist and disregards programs like Gladio in its entirety.

I am not looking to reopen that discussion... if you want to start a new thread with a QUOTE FROM PIPER that supports his conclusion... please do so.
I've done more than my share of posting suppot to my argument...

as they used to say... WHERE'S THE BEEF?

DJ

[Greg Burnham]

I suppose in the same way David Josephs discredited it here. Hmm...

David Josephs did a far better job of discrediting it than either you or Mark (or Paper) did of proving any Israel sponsorship.

I don't think you're following what I wrote Magda. I clearly stated I did not believe in sponsorship but that the remaining evidence was very solid proof of main facilitation. I don't know how people who totally avoided the discussion of the evidence have a right to later come in and condemn it.

David, on the other hand, had his facts completely wrong to the point where they blew up on him and he was forced to leave the thread. Those facts showed JFK had drastically cut the Israel budget in a move similar to his American University inclinations a month prior to the new backers being declared in Dallas.

Sir(s),

You've been asked repeatedly to simply provide the text within Piper's book that most convinces you of his conclusions...

You've offered nothing. Repeatedly.

The number of times Piper calims, "the evidence stands on its own" is comical to the point of absurd.

I've been here the entire time Albert(s)... and have gone back thru Piper's book to find such statements.
They don't exist.

He builds a case on the imaginary conflicts he creates between JFK and BG.
He SUPPOSES connections that don't exist and disregards programs like Gladio in its entirety.

I am not looking to reopen that discussion... if you want to start a new thread with a QUOTE FROM PIPER that supports his conclusion... please do so.
I've done more than my share of posting suppot to my argument...

as they used to say... WHERE'S THE BEEF?

DJ

So far all they've brought is pork! Get it?

[Lauren Johnson]

deleted

[Lauren Johnson]

Greg, could it be, oh, let's just take wild guess...the Judensau?

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, could it be, oh, let's just take wild guess...the Judensau?

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau

Bingo.

[Dawn Meredith]

From the article link above:

"Since the barbiturates found in Dorothy's system take a half hour to an hour to start working and then reach a dangerous peak level, this implies she consumed them between 2:30 and 3 a.m. The authorities should have pinned down her whereabouts at that time. As Lee Israel told this magazine, ordinarily in the case of a woman's suspicious death, the police would "go out and at least ask pro forma questions of the people who were around her the night before." But the New York cops "did nothing. I mean nothing." The lead detective on the case, who had six children, abruptly resigned from the NYPD without a pension a short time later, moved out of town, and opened a pricey restaurant.:

This story was written and published in 2007, why do articles like this seem to appear all the time regarding the assassination and no one persue's them any further then the research stage for the article itself. How are submissions not made in light of this article to re-investigate the case of Dorothy's death. You have the hair dresser, the beau, the medical examiner and the detective all still alive at this stage who could be interviewed under oath due to the fact that it is a murder case.?

It amazes me how often nothing is taken further by D.A's or by family members who are the victims of such crimes when reporters find evidence that contradicts the official findings.

Great questions all, A.J. -- Very apropos to the situation. You said: "Why do articles like this seem to appear all the time regarding the assassination and no one persue's them any further?"

However, no offense intended, but why don't you pursue this further? You asked why others don't--so why don't you?

In my view, oftentimes the family is in a state of extreme grief upon discovery of the unexpected death of a revered loved one. That alone might account for their "less than exemplary" investigative skills or demands for justice in the immediate aftermath of the terminal incident. Think about it...then take action. Of course, you could claim--rightfully--that the case is cold on this one. And it probably is. But don't fault the author or the media for not having doggedly pursued it. The opportunity is yours! Embrace it--

Greg: How can one without police power take action?
Yes one can write an article, but beyond that only the police and DA have the authority to truly "take action".

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

David isn't being honest. If you go back to the original thread Mark brought information to show that David had his facts exactly backwards. David showed the same kind of non-serious ridicule and bluster while delivering that ass-backwards information. After being shown the correct interpretation he departed the thread. Later on he tried to say he left the thread after establishing a superior position. Now David is back with the same self-indicting approach. No more needs to be said.

You can't jew-bait this topic. The Piper material the critics refused to recognize is too deep into credible evidence to treat that way and only reflects upon those who do so.

[Charles Drago]

Another disruption tactic commonly employed by website agents provocateur is flooding the targeted site's threads with material irrelevant to their subjects.

The "Albert Doyle" entity, on form, is doing just that right here.

Then there's this gem from "Doyle" posted earlier on this thread:

"I don't know how people who totally avoided the discussion of the evidence have a right to later come in and condemn it."

The agent provocateur simultaneously will violate a given site's rules of engagement and condemn others -- most often disingenuously -- for doing so.

"Albert Doyle" pontificating on "rights" ... The mind boggles.

Your game is over here, "Doyle." Why not take it elsewhere?