The LBJ-Did-It Operation Continues to Unfold

[Seamus Coogan]

Post #101 (if I have the number right -- Evica's Excerpt) and Dragoo's #119, pretty well nail it for me. I think significant distinction has been made in terms of Israel's interests and its actions, and it might serve well to tease apart Israeli or 'Jewish' or Zionist or 'quasi-Jewish' inter-connects with Federal Reserve and BIS matters as well. Other labels or attributed names can be used, but they muddy things rather than clarify them.

As I read recently the Wikipedia entry on David Rockefeller, I was struck by the size of his Rolodex and the fact that he had and could have exceedingly private meetings with a wide range of people at a wide range of locations, including at the family estate at Pocantico and inside what surely is a well-guarded, debugged and highly-secure inner sanctum.

What seems clear to me from the cheap seats is that these powers are increasingly cocky and arrogant and brazen, and are increasingly boastful and somewhat loose with their statements and actions; they feel they have power and control of sufficient strength that it cannot be challenged. [I am not arguing that point, simply stating their attitude....]

I was struck recently by a statement... I had to think for a bit to realize where I saw it... about justice, about how it was for each of us "to deliver justice and heal ourselves, to muster the courage to ask questions and the strength to endure answers."

Oh, yes, of course, I said to myself as I retrieved the book off my nightstand....

it was that fellow Drago in the introduction to "A Certain Arrogance". :pope:

I like the last line. CD admitted to reading all of Farrells book Ed, and I quoted the guy. He must have strength indeed to endure the answers of Farrells latest what a shower of 'shite' that was.

[Albert Doyle]

I'm wondering if Seamus even read 'Final Judgment'? The reason I ask is because the counter points he gives so much weight to are easily shattered by Piper's material if you read it in depth. For instance Seamus gives refuting value to his link on Israel's development of nuclear weapons. I scanned it and it didn't contain anything that would challenge what Piper wrote. A better attempt to refute Piper would have acknowledged his detailing how Kennedy had dug his heels in on supplying nuclear development materiel to Israel while Angleton was directly subverting his power by sneaking nuclear blueprints and uranium to Dimona. You can see the value the mediterranean connection had and what kind of power it was forming.

Another thing is de Gaulle's attempted assassination by OAS was somewhat similar to JFK's in the way that a right wing military oriented group refused to go along with his soft position on a rebelling colony. Israel had direct interests in limiting arab independence and therefore power.

I fear how those who oppose Piper's thesis would do if he came into this thread and defended his material. While pleading to avoid any personal animosity and requesting diplomatic immunity on the subject, I suggest diverting the discussion to "anti-semitism" is, in my mind, a sign that the direct actual facts and their meanings are being avoided. Or maybe they haven't been understood?

Alas, I confess I have not the time to go dig into 'Final Judgment' and seek out the quotes. Maybe this discussion can be put off for now?

[Mark Stapleton]

Why is Pipers book so silly. You tell me your the expert Mark!

Jim wanted evidence. Real evidence. This is just bombast and hyperbole of the worst kind.

It's fun rattling the cage. The noisy local Zionist jumps out of the trees, closely followed by a loyal cheer squad of airheads. It's very amusing.

I could carve up your post like a side of beef because you don't know what you're talking about. Fortunately I don't debate Zionist gatekeepers like you. I have standards. I only debate serious people.

Tough luck for you but don't let that blunt your enthusiasm. I want to see some serious shrill. I know you won't let me down.

[Seamus Coogan]

I'm wondering if Seamus even read 'Final Judgment'? The reason I ask is because the counter points he gives so much weight to are easily shattered by Piper's material if you read it in depth. For instance Seamus gives refuting value to his link on Israel's development of nuclear weapons. I scanned it and it didn't contain anything that would challenge what Piper wrote. A better attempt to refute Piper would have acknowledged his detailing how Kennedy had dug his heels in on supplying nuclear development materiel to Israel while Angleton was directly subverting his power by sneaking nuclear blueprints and uranium to Dimona. You can see the value the mediterranean connection had and what kind of power it was forming.

Another thing is DeGualle's attempted assassination by OAS was somewhat similar to JFK's in the way that a right wing military oriented group refused to go along with his soft position on a rebelling colony. Israel had direct interests in limiting arab independence and therefore power.

I fear how those who oppose Piper's thesis would do if he came into this thread and defended his material. While pleading to avoid any personal animosity and requesting diplomatic immunity on the subject, I suggest diverting the discussion to "anti-semitism" is, in my mind, a sign that the direct actual facts and their meanings are being avoided. Or maybe they haven't been understood?

Alas, I confess I have not the time to go dig into 'Final Judgment' and seek out the quotes. Maybe this discussion can be put off for now?

I think this is rich. I've asked for this conversation to be moved to another thread for awhile. So please don't bring me up in this as if I am the one persisting with it. Albert if you'd 'read' Pipers book he spells it 'De Gaulle' or more correctly 'de Gaulle' is how it should be spelt. I am guilty also. But wow like who is De Gualle?

The points I made were taken from Marks opinions and his statements. Now, please don't misconstrue what Mark or I have said. Mark mentioned nothing of what you have discussed so don't play games. It's one of your worst habits. You often take things I have said out of context in particularly when we were discussing the potential gunmen in Dealey Plaza.

So please don't take me out of context again. It's the act of a coward as far as I'm concerned. And as I rather like you and really don't want to think ill I'll write it off as just another 'mistake'.

Now if you want me one day to do a big CTKA piece shredding Piper to pieces well you'll just have to join the cue. I have had a good skim through Pipers book. Didn't take notes. You may recall I mentioned that I thought it interesting about Berlets name. But I'd start to get very worried when a CTKA writer starts taking detailed notes on a crock. You've seen what happens. Pray tell me where the references are so I can start making some. If Piper ever showed up, why oh why would I be intimidated? He's such an intellectual giant of a man.

[Seamus Coogan]

I could carve up your post like a side of beef because you don't know what you're talking about. Fortunately I don't debate Zionist gatekeepers like you. I have standards. I only debate serious people.

Tough luck for you but don't let that blunt your enthusiasm. I want to see some serious shrill. I know you won't let me down.

Oh Mark you've really carved me up so badly haven't you? I can see your indepth replies. Wow. A knock out mate. Ask anyone here if I'm a Zionist gate keeper lol! I think the answer might be noooooo. As for the question of you being a Nazi rent boy down the back end of Credibility Lane. Well that'd be open to the jury!

[Albert Doyle]

Again, I think some people don't realize how they reinforce the point by pointing out typos in response to direct points they never answer. Case in point.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Israel is not the sponsor of the assassination and the majority of us we are on agreement. They might have been used at the facilitator or operational level but we don't have the evidence. Talking of Final Judgement that book shares on thing in common with Perfect cover. I don't imply that they are of the same value, you do know my opinion reagrding Final Judgement. However they both mention a simulated attack/fake attempt in Dealey Plaza. Any thoughts on this scenario?

[Seamus Coogan]

Again, I think some people don't realize how they reinforce the point by pointing out typos in response to direct points they never answer. Case in point.

What ever Al. I take the crap outta myself for spelling mistakes it's no biggy.

But mate you can't even provide me with references for a non existant error I made in an argument you essentially made up. Mate go and hang out with David Icke. Whose also a very big fan. Seriously that's the sort of chump that Piper attracts. What's that classic line from JFK 'You wanna line up with a dead man'.

The ARRB No Smoking Gun. Hmmmm I wonder why?

You can check this 'drek' out on page 519-520: This the kind of bull everyone from Gary Mack to Gus Russo has said at certain times. Take a look at my article on James Bamford. Near the end and you'll see a very compelling list of issues ignored by the likes of Piper!

http://www.ctka.net/2010/OpNorthwoods.html

As expected Piper stoves into Marwell! The first Executive Director. Who like most executive directors of such boards, actually had very little to do with the investigation of said documents. Bar letter heads and the paper clip expense. Tunnheim was for all effects and purposes, the main man by all accounts and he penned the final report. At it's outset Piper implies that Marwell, because of his Nazi hunting past could not be trusted. This is very goofy stuff. Because A) Wasn't hunting Nazi scum like Borman and Mengele what most would call a good thing? Of course folks it's a negative of course if your a fan of these guys, or you are insane enough to think that Marwells appointment has mystical links to Israel. Other than Marwell being an asshole (and a very mixed bag of one at that). Yes, he was friendly with Posner and people like Gus Russo. Whom Piper treats with a rather worrying level of respect. But it was actually Marwell himself who hired Doug Horne as an investigator. Horne then went on to be deeply critical of the investigation of the ARRB and while his fetish for Liftons bunk thesis ruined much of his good work, he still was able to put out some good stuff. Jeremy Gunn another member of the ARRB was also critical of the assassination being carried out by a lone nut. He too was hired by Marwell who would later be replaced. Piper was not the first person to write of any of this about the ARRB either.

References: In Final Judgement

Surprise, surprise he doesn't even have a reference section or footnotes for the first 40 pages of his book. Nada nothing. All he has is a meaningless self gratifying 40 Page forward? What kind of Historian or researcher does not have a reference section at the end of their book summarising everything? Why couldn't he have put footnotes at the bottom of the page?

I mean that's 101 stuff.

In here his reference section is on page 555. But it ends at 592. Theres another 200 pages of gunk after and on page 674. He's just hypothesized that Garrison got hold of the Torbitt Document during his investigation. Um like it came out in 1970 a year after the trial. Duh! The last few '200' odd pages AFTER HIS REFERENCES are spent correcting all sorts of cock ups he made in previous editions all with the caveat 'this does not effect my central thesis' is this guy John Hankeys or Greg Douglas' brother? Wow. Keep watching this space for more updates as I go through it. so watch this space. Oh yes! And we'll deal with Kennedy and the nukes VERY soon.

Quoting Hoffman 'Brilliant researcher' Pg 662.

Mike Hoffman. Man this guy is the 'king' of research. He's so bad that even Joseph Farrell used him. Why is he brilliant? Because he denies the existence of gas chambers and he goes into the existence of 'Freemasons' on the Warren Commission. Now I've dealt with this kind of stuff in what appears to be 3 essays now. How's this crock.

I don't know if all of the Warren Commission members were Masons. However, some, notably Michael A. Hoffman II, a very brilliant researcher, have demonstrated quite a bit of Masonic imagery in events surrounding the assassination. I don't dispute that. It's likely there was high-level Masonic support for the assassination, particularly since JFK was a Catholic. Zionism and Freemasonry are both heartily anti-Catholic and do overlap in many areas of intrigue. No question about it.

Exsqueeze me. Freemasonry anti-Catholic? In some centres it maybe. Like in Northern Ireland a place notorious for it. I'm Catholic myself and sorry to burst the bubble here I know of a number of Catholics involved in local lodges in my own town. Please explain to me Mister Piper, about the P2 lodge in Italy? Or the fact that individual's like Salvador Allende were also very high level Masons and also Catholic? Zionism is opposed to anything and everything according to Piper. Anti-Catholicism, would be a given wouldn't it? Sheesh man, I mean what could Zionists have against us Catholics, I mean what have we ever done to them bar the odd pogrom or two in the middle ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...st_Crusade

It's stuff like this ongoing stuff that has helped nurture Zionist fears or helped exploit them in the wider community. By denying the holocaust and so fourth your playing the game they want you to by fueling their BS.

[Seamus Coogan]

My technique from taking notes from woeful stuff is to start at the back, check references and so fourth. But hark! When there's no references (or at least when there's another two hundred pages of unsourced dialogue after) you just simply reverse engineer.

Like I've said. Be very careful when a CTKA researcher takes interest in something like this. The bane of being a researcher in this regard is critical review. It can make enemies of people you otherwise admire (and vice versa). I must confess to having a certain 'sanguinary' nature about critiques. The reality is however I actually do enjoy giving out praise and plaudits more than turning someones argument into pulp.

But now that Michael Collins Piper strolls into view, I guess taking down this guy was inevitable.

Piper isn't the worst I've ever come across. He hasn't been as factually challenged in certain areas as others have and he does have some okay snippets that take him above say Farrell, Hankey and and say a Lamar Waldron. He also touches on some interesting areas of US-Israeli relations. I wouldn't call Piper 'anti-Semitic' but foolish yes. However, he spoils it all by driving for an Israeli thesis that ignores wider meaning in the readings he utilises and thus he is dishonest. His book as said before is very poorly organised and a good portion is also unsourced. Now there's a lot of crud. But wow. These pearls really stuck out!

The Third World in New Zealand

Phew Piper knows his geography and anthropology. Let's check out this one from Page 523!

In the aftermath I received wonderful letters from people as far away as Malta, Ghana, Guyana and New Zealand who were, it seems, profoundly surprised to learn there are a few Americans unafraid to raise questions about the U.S. relationship with Israel. I amgrateful to those people from the so-called "Third World" who took the time to write and am thankful that there are a few places where freedom of speech (when it comes to the subject of Israeli intrigue) still exists.

Okay things are pretty bad down here and might be tough in Malta but neither place is quite in the 3rd World catgory as Ghana or Guyana I'm afraid. Talk about 3rd rate research.

Sheesh this note taking lark is a jaunt isn't it?

The Trade Mart Caper in full 'Bloom'

Let's now jump forward in time shall we? To the start of the book! Oh boy this is a goody and once again we see Mr Piper's extraordinary talent (or lack there of) for any form of lay out and geography.

By forcing JFK to speak at the Trade Mart, the Dallas elite positioned the JFK motorcade to take the now-infamous "dog-leg" turn into what was a classically sniper- friendly "kill zone" on Elm Street just below the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), from where it later was claimed the alleged assassin, TSBD employee Lee Harvey Oswald, fired the fatal shots. The spot was also in easy range of the "grassy knoll" and the nearby Dal-Tex Building, where assassination researchers believe snipers were located. Had JFK's advance man prevailedas he usually didJFK (on his way to the preferred location) would have traveled two blocks farther away from the TSBDout of the kill zoneat a greater speed.

Sam Bloom the resident Jew in Kennedys detail, insisted on the Trade Mart so it would have to go through Dealey Plaza? What the hay? Again Pipers logic is remiss. Bloom was in charge of the 'Advance Man' what a joke. John Connally was actually one of the people involved here in these discussions. Not Bloom in any account bar Pipers (which is unreferenced as per usual) and even Connally thought the Trade Mart was an unsafe venue.

It's a little known fact that Connally, who encouraged Jackie to come along, was not keen on the idea of the president coming to Dallas. Why? Because Kennedy divided Connally's centrist conservative constituency which represented the accumulated wealth of Texas. Thus rather than enthusiastically organise rallies and functions, Connally dithered and seems to have done all he could to get the trip over and done with as quickly as possible. (Jim Reston, The Lone Star: The Life of John Connally pgs. 240-260)

Connally opposed a parade route. The parade route was specifically organised by Secret Service men Winston Lawson and Forrest Sorrels, who overrode the Dallas authorities they were supposed to plan it with. Connally loudly voiced security concerns about the final venue's size, referring to the Trade Mart's balcony and 53 entrances. He was also uninformed of the actual parade route (WCR pgs 27-30; Vince Palamara: Survivors Guilt pgs 2-9)

Tony Frank a guy who takes no BS. Taking his cues from Palamara and his solid brain writes this.

"Other than the assassination plans being disturbed, it would not have disturbed anything for the Secret Service if the City of Dallas had done something with the curbing and followed the Dallas Host Committee's route. There is no legitimate reason why the Secret Service would not want the motorcade to continue down Main and then get onto the Stemmons Freeway.

It cannot be overstated that the Dallas Host Committee for the Presidential visit wanted to go straight down Main Street to access the Stemmons Freeway, while the Secret Service wanted to take the route on which the President would be killed. It was obviously "Secret Service" agents who told Chief Curry that they did not want the curbing removed. The Host Committee consisted of: Robert Cullum, President of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce; Sam Bloom of the Sam Bloom Agency, a public relations firm in Dallas; and Felix McKnight, Editor of the Dallas Times Herald. They most certainly knew of the curb issue when they chose to go straight down Main to access the Stemmons Freeway. The Host Committee wanted something done with the curbing."

Sooo Bloom was dead set on it going past the TSBD was he? A Key man was he Mr Piper?

Well we've just seen the folly of that haven't we?

Jim DiEugenio a 'responsible researcher'

Kenn Thomas did this in his ode to the Torbitt document. In fact it's a common trick amongst researchers of a lesser God to utilise the name of a well respected person and fleece it as if that person would condone their work. JF has done this with Jim Douglas, Farrell and Hankey have done this with Fletcher Prouty and now Piper does this with Jim.

Page 663-[567 of the online version].

"I don't always agree with the interpretations of the LaRouche organization, but their research is always worth examining on a wide variety of matters. I will point out that several other JFK researchers have relied upon LaRouche writings as part of their own research: Jim Marrs cites the LaRouche efforts inCrossfire, James DiEugenio cites [size=12]them in Destin[size=12]y[/SIZE][/SIZE]Betrayed and even Oliver Stone himself in his published script of the filmJFK (including commentary and annotation) cites the LaRoucheorganization for some of the material relating to Permindex. So if anyone wants to score me for using LaRouche material as a source, they better be prepared to do the same regarding these other "responsible" researchers."

Now the inference here is that Jim is a 'responsible researcher' why is he responsible? Well I don't know. He certainly doesnt endorse or entertain any of Pipers theories concerning Israel and the assassination. Nor did Marrs in Crossfire. Thus, when Piper attacks people for disliking his thesis yet includes DiEugenio I am very suspicious. Is he trying to link both Jim's in with his ideas? When considering how responsible Jim has been in 'not' going along with the aforementioned 'Israel did it' gunk and how irresponsible Piper is for going with it. Pipers the last guy I'd ever want endorsing my stuff. Jim uses LaRouche on one page in a footnote this is to do with the slightly dodgey information concerning Shaws possible arrest of Walter Dornberger. Jim was uncommital to this source. Thus his use of LaRouche was not neccessarily an endorsement of his work. Anyhow from time to time I've used people whose work I tend not to agree with, help I even used a good call by John Hankey concerning E Howard Hunt. What Piper has done however, is portray DiEugenio as endorsing LaRouche. Which is unequivocally untrue and is as bad as saying John agrees with my ideas.

George Michael Evica thought Mossad was Awesome????????

Now seeing as Jim DiEugenio is 'responsible' look out! Our memories of GME are truly shattered. GME really loved Mossad all along. I'm sorry Chuck! I just didn't know how to break it too you!

"In a similar vein, longtime JFK assassination researcher George Michael Evica has referred to my documentation of the Mossad connections of Permindex as being part of the "Communist" false sponsors of disinformation in the JFK assassination and described Final Judgment as being "itself a valuable exercise in 'false flags,' patsies and inverted plots, but like the Garrison investigation, a major venting of False Sponsorship `leads,' which, paradoxically is its most significant value."
Evica makes a good point that there has been quite a bit of disinformation relating to the JFK assassination in circulation over the years, but he is obviously unwilling to concede the possibility that those wonderful intelligence operatives at the Mossad had anything to do with it. Evidently, in Evica's view, the Mossad is the only intelligence agency in the world that kept its hands clean as far as the JFK assassination is concerned. As I keep saying to people: "If the Mossad and Israel loved JFK so much, why don't JFK researchers go to the Mossad and ask them to find out what really happened to JFK and settle the matter once and for all?"

This entire ramble is bizarre. When did Evica ever call Mossad 'wonderful' and when did Evica ever say every single intelligence agency in the world was ever involved? Evica quite obviously thought Pipes book was full of shite. Useful only for the foolish amount of false sponsors Pipes named in all seriousness.

The Torbitt Document Sucks. So I use Them Via other Author's.

One of the funniest things about dear Mr Pipes book, is that while decrying these documents he seems to use a lot of authors that love them. Lyndon LaRouche gets a few mentions for starters. He wrote two books that heavily relied on the Torbitt Documents. 'Permindex Britain's International Assassination Bureau' and 'Dope Inc' in which Permindex was again a big player. A dead give away for his Permindex-Torbitt Document hard on is his use of the FBI's Division 5 (Page 254) In which he adds that Bloomfield the founder of Permindex was a member. Outside of the Torbitt document however there is no actual evidence of his involvement with Division 5.

Another oddity about Piper is that while decrying the Gemstone Files (Pages 672-674) Torbitt Document (Pages 674-675) for being fake he criticises them for ignoring the Israeli links. How anybody can take this guy seriously is beyond my comprehension. It seems he is effectively saying that he'd believe them if they pointed to Israeli involvement. In his rant about the Gemstone Files, he asks the reader to compare the accuracy of his work to the Gemstone Files and 'would welcome an intellectual challenge of this calibre'. Well of course the Gemstone File is packed full of lies. So Piper would be right at home. He himself is an exceptionally dishonest individual. Just look at what he writes about Mae Brussell.


[size=12]"The much-touted Grande Dame of Conspiracy Theorists, Mae Brussell, helped popularize the Skeleton Key and she had a type of cult following. Mrs. Brussell seemed to find a Nazi under every rock and that has an appeal in some circles. One of her disciples is a character named Dave Emory. I discussed her theory that "The Nazis Killed JFK" in Chapter 15."

Now. The Nazi stuff is almost as insufferable as the Israelis did it. But not quite. There's more genuine evidence linking JFK's assassins to generic right wing organisations with facist sympathies than there are to Israel. As for Emory who cares!!!! His influence on JFK related stuff is negligable. But as for Brussell, she thought the Gemstone Files were an utter load of shite (http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vmgemstone...vepics.htm). Furthermore, Brussell didn't create the Gemston Files 'Skeleton Key' it was [/SIZE]actually Stephanie Caruana her adjutant in 1975 that went orgasmic on it. All Brussell did was assemble them in a folder in which she slapped 'Gemstone' on it. In fact Piper would do well to read this brilliant article on the Gemstone Files by Martin Cannon (http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/v...w=previous).
Indeed it's via reading this review one can see how much Piper may well have used from this document, he uses but distrusts deeply.

Stay Tuned for more...well do I really need to go on!!!!

[Charles Drago]

Israel is not the sponsor of the assassination and the majority of us we are on agreement. They might have been used at the facilitator or operational level but we don't have the evidence. Talking of Final Judgement that book shares on thing in common with Perfect cover. I don't imply that they are of the same value, you do know my opinion reagrding Final Judgement. However they both mention a simulated attack/fake attempt in Dealey Plaza. Any thoughts on this scenario?

The sine qua non for effective disinformation is the inclusion of verifiable data in its midst. The more revelatory in nature that data is, the more persuasive the disinformation will be.

The simulated attack hypothesis is sound, profoundly underappreciated, and ultimately essential to the process of understanding the structure of the final attack scenario. Piper was NOT the first to postulate it; George Michael Evica early on had argued for just such a component in the prime Facilitators' attack meta-structure.

Back in the early 1990s my own relatively primitive thinking about the assassination produced just such a scenario. I had neither the standing nor the chutzpah to argue for it publicly.

George Michael had both.

(The Evica simulated attack hypothesis directly gave birth to Vince Palamara's "Third Alternative" work -- the title of which was taken directly from and with the permission of George Michael, who generously helped direct Vince's thinking along these lines.)

Nothing that I've learned since has moved me off this position. Much that I've learned has helped sustain and evolve my original thinking.

The deeply layered Dallas structure, in all its nuance, leads me to conclude that no other similar scenario could have been run simultaneously -- including the Chicago "plot".

Finally: To categorize "Israel" as a False Sponsor is NOT to absolve Israeli interests from participation in the assassination at many levels of Facilitation -- including very high levels indeed.