Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark presents Piper Final Judgment as significant, important, even, as its title insists, final.

That this is the final judgment on the JFK assassination.

That Israel is responsible.

Eschew any qualifiers, the author's thesis is that Israel is responsible for JFK's assassination.

There's compelling evidence supporting the thesis that Israel played a major role in the assassination. Israel benefitted from the coup as much if not more than the more commonly cited conspirators. Historical fact.

Utter nonsense.

You wouldn't know a "historical fact" if you were urinating on one.

You keep throwing out this bullshit, I keep calling you on it, you keep ignoring the call.

You insist upon applying objective measurement to subjective benefit.

Did the conspiracy Sponsor who committed this murder as an act of personal vengeance "benefit" from JFK's death more than the Sponsor who committed this murder for financial gain?

Thrill us with your metrics.

And while you're at it, learn how to spell "benefited."

If you are going to start calling people for their spelling errors, you might be setting a dangerous precedent. I thought that kind of pettiness was beneath you.

Secondly, myself and many others don't consider it 'bullshit' at all. I'm not ignoring anything. You still haven't opposed the hypothesis with anything remotely cohesive as far as I can see. Chanting 'bullshit' and 'utter nonsense' is not an argument.

[Mark Stapleton]

You insist upon applying objective measurement to subjective benefit.

Did the conspiracy Sponsor who committed this murder as an act of personal vengeance "benefit" from JFK's death more than the Sponsor who committed this murder for financial gain?

Thrill us with your metrics.

Strange question.

Personal vengeance can't be measured. Financial gain can be measured, especially in Israel's case. There's nothing subjective about financial gain. It's big fat dollars.

[Mark Stapleton]

To amplify, I see the assassination as one event in a long-standing business model

One which is not controlled by national, religious, ideological players

Those players were involved in every assassination I know of.

By coincidence none were involved in this one.

You're asking me to suspend disbelief Phil.

PAY ATTENTION!

The key word is "controlled."

Yes I know.

The premise I'm responding to is that the sponsors, controllers, puppetmasters or whatever you want to call them were free of any nationalist, religious and/or ideological aspirations.

I don't believe it.

[Don Jeffries]

Charles,

Dawn tried very gingerly to tame you down, and you responded with a passionate advocacy of ad hom attacks and a petty swipe at her spelling. You may have found a unique niche to fill- bullies are wearing out their welcome in society, and they need an intelligent voice to defend their cause.

None of us are clever or witty enough to successfully mimic Groucho Marx's style. Can you post anything that isn't a snappy, acerbic condemnation of someone? Also, when you adopt such a superior attitude, you make it inevitable that someone is going to throw stones back at your glass house.

You may unintentionally be increasing Piper's sales.

[Mark Stapleton]

Charles,

Dawn tried very gingerly to tame you down, and you responded with a passionate advocacy of ad hom attacks and a petty swipe at her spelling. You may have found a unique niche to fill- bullies are wearing out their welcome in society, and they need an intelligent voice to defend their cause.

None of us are clever or witty enough to successfully mimic Groucho Marx's style. Can you post anything that isn't a snappy, acerbic condemnation of someone? Also, when you adopt such a superior attitude, you make it inevitable that someone is going to throw stones back at your glass house.

You may unintentionally be increasing Piper's sales.

Don,

Charles lost his temper as we all do at times, especially over this issue. That shouldn't make people frightened of debating it, though.

I'm not happy about the way Albert was treated. It became too personal and turned into a frenzied pursuit. Last night I read the lengthy thread about LHO in the doorway started by Ralph Cinque and the Albert Doyle who contributed dozens of posts there was indistinguishable from the Albert Doyle who made many posts here in my view. The language and posting style seemed identical to me.

That thread got too personal also. Like you, I sit on the fence regarding the Cinque/Fetzer subject matter. On one hand the hairline looks like Lovelady. On the other hand, the Oswald frameup works better placing him on the 2nd floor rather than the doorway, where it doesn't work at all, and this would have quickly become apparent to those seeking to fit him up for the crime. I think Cinque and Fetzer were entitled to some latitude. They presented a good case, perhaps too forcefully, but were attacked by an angry mob. Questioning a person's sanity for merely suggesting that something may not be as it seems is too much. The online community has too much kneejerk hostility to new ideas. It is an important issue too, because if they are right about LHO in the doorway, it exposes the frameup in a profound way that could easily convince people who might otherwise be indifferent towards this sorry case.

[LR Trotter]

I recently heard a longtime JFK Assassination researcher say that he was not a photography expert. I must say I can echo that statement many times, but I do wish I knew how reliable a blowup is. The Altgens picture of the JFK limo that has the TSBD building doorway in the background is the basis for the Doorway Man identification, and that is a small area that has very hard to identify images of people watching the motorcade. Maybe accuracy is attainable, but when looking at the picture as is the enlargement on my computer does not strongly indicate who Doorway Man is. The image, when added to testimony, indicates that person to be Billy Nolan Lovelady. If Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence is dependent on him being pictured in the doorway, would that indicate that BNL, or anyone else who does not appear in the photograph that may have been in or near the TSBD, could have been a 6th floor shooter? LHO not being Doorway Man does not, does not, place him on the 6th floor southeast window firing a rifle at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/1963. But, my purpose in posting is regarding blowup accuracy, as the Doorway Man identification argument has taken far to much time and space already.

[Greg Burnham]

I recently heard a longtime JFK Assassination researcher say that he was not a photography expert. I must say I can echo that statement many times, but I do wish I knew how reliable a blowup is. The Altgens picture of the JFK limo that has the TSBD building doorway in the background is the basis for the Doorway Man identification, and that is a small area that has very hard to identify images of people watching the motorcade. Maybe accuracy is attainable, but when looking at the picture as is the enlargement on my computer does not strongly indicate who Doorway Man is. The image, when added to testimony, indicates that person to be Billy Nolan Lovelady. If Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence is dependent on him being pictured in the doorway, would that indicate that BNL, or anyone else who does not appear in the photograph that may have been in or near the TSBD, could have been a 6th floor shooter? LHO not being Doorway Man does not, does not, place him on the 6th floor southeast window firing a rifle at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/1963. But, my purpose in posting is regarding blowup accuracy, as the Doorway Man identification argument has taken far to much time and space already.

Remember: whenever you are looking at an internet image on any web browser the resolution will always be limited to 70 DPI no matter how large the original file is. That's right: 70 dots per inch is all you ever get no matter what. Moreover, most image files have been compressed and usually more than once by the time you get them on your screen. Each compression reduces clarity due to a reduction in "unique information" being transferred in subsequent iterations. So, the short answer is: expecting to be able to accurately make definitive determinations from such a limited source, even when "blown up" is unreasonable. "No matter how much you stir it, you can't make chicken soup out of chicken shit."

[Phil Dragoo]

Larry and Greg

Digital imagery was used by Dartmouth FBI stooge Hany Farid to claim the Backyard Photos were not fraudulent.

Among the tool's appalling omissions were the many anomalies unrelated to the nose--say, the chin, to name one, huge, incongruity.

The pursuit of any unexplained identity in Altgens' doorway ought to be considered well apart from its bearing on Oswald's innocence.

It alone cannot presume to cover the matter; it is merely a possible time-stamped alibi, but one not lethal in its abscence.

Lee Oswald got change from a woman of Robert Groden's acquaintance, an act placing him outside the sniper's nest when the Warren Commission said he was there.

The Girl on the Stairs didn't see him there when the Warren Commission said he must have been.

Truly and Baker provide another time-stamp exonerating Oswald; how quaint the Coke was censored. How tiresome the "experts" claim Oswald could've "easily" run the steeplechase, stashed the piece, descended the stairs, et cetera to arrive breathing calmly for the sudden arrivals.

DeRosa World notes the censored Coke:

http://derosaworld.typepad.com/derosawor...-coke.html

The above account is droll.

We might ask Oswald.

He'd say, he was in the lunchroom drinking a Coke.

[Mark Stapleton]

We might ask Oswald.

He'd say, he was in the lunchroom drinking a Coke.

According to Lane's Rush to Judgement (p.355), Bill Shelley told the FBI Lovelady was seated on the entrance steps in front of him at the time of the shooting. One would think if the Warren Commission wanted to put this issue to bed they would ask Shelley whether Lovelady jumped to his feet but they never asked Shelley about Lovelady's posture.

[Greg Burnham]

Larry and Greg

Digital imagery was used by Dartmouth FBI stooge Hany Farid to claim the Backyard Photos were not fraudulent.

Among the tool's appalling omissions were the many anomalies unrelated to the nose--say, the chin, to name one, huge, incongruity.

The pursuit of any unexplained identity in Altgens' doorway ought to be considered well apart from its bearing on Oswald's innocence.

It alone cannot presume to cover the matter; it is merely a possible time-stamped alibi, but one not lethal in its abscence.

Lee Oswald got change from a woman of Robert Groden's acquaintance, an act placing him outside the sniper's nest when the Warren Commission said he was there.

The Girl on the Stairs didn't see him there when the Warren Commission said he must have been.

Truly and Baker provide another time-stamp exonerating Oswald; how quaint the Coke was censored. How tiresome the "experts" claim Oswald could've "easily" run the steeplechase, stashed the piece, descended the stairs, et cetera to arrive breathing calmly for the sudden arrivals.

DeRosa World notes the censored Coke:

http://derosaworld.typepad.com/derosawor...-coke.html

The above account is droll.

We might ask Oswald.

He'd say, he was in the lunchroom drinking a Coke.

I agree 100% Phil. The evidence placing him on the steps is not strong enough to be exculpatory, but all the rest of the evidence placing him off the 6th floor is.