Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

Keep fighting the good fight Vas, CD and Magda. Sadly my dang laptop is off line at the moment. So I can't give any indepth analysis. As yet. Don's right there wasn't much analysis done on Pipers book and it was rejected for it being merely a pro 'Israel did it'. No one has taken the time to break it apart piece by piece. Which incidentally Magda and I were thinking of doing for a CTKA article (well it was one of the ideas). The issue here is that I have read it. Further I have given some indepth analysis on it here at DPF. There's a lot more going than merely Israel as suspects. There's an appalling use of sources, a number of revisions and re-writes. Outright fabrications of the truth and poor research. Mark ducked and dived continually during this time. I'll detail this and find my stuff when I get more time.

Excuse me?

I don't and won't duck and dive from my belief that Israel was behind JFK's death. Cheapjack mediocrities like you don't faze me at all.

[Seamus Coogan]

Keep fighting the good fight Vas, CD and Magda. Sadly my dang laptop is off line at the moment. So I can't give any indepth analysis. As yet. Don's right there wasn't much analysis done on Pipers book and it was rejected for it being merely a pro 'Israel did it'. No one has taken the time to break it apart piece by piece. Which incidentally Magda and I were thinking of doing for a CTKA article (well it was one of the ideas). The issue here is that I have read it. Further I have given some indepth analysis on it here at DPF. There's a lot more going than merely Israel as suspects. There's an appalling use of sources, a number of revisions and re-writes. Outright fabrications of the truth and poor research. Mark ducked and dived continually during this time. I'll detail this and find my stuff when I get more time.

Excuse me?

I don't and won't duck and dive from my belief that Israel was behind JFK's death. Cheapjack mediocrities like you don't faze me at all.

Well based on the evidence last time you popped up Mark I have plenty to go by. Cheapjack mediocrity hmmmm rofl. I'd rather be mediocore than a fringe dwelling lunatic. About the only useful or interesting thing I found in Pipes rant is some stuff on Chip Berlet's familial connections. Which if true certainly explain where he comes from. Other than that he's a waste of space.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I consider 'Final Judgement' to be a disinformation book. However all disinformation books mix facts
with lies. For example he names Angleton as being part of the conspiracy, and he is right about it, no question about that, most of us agree. He talks about the drug connection to SE Asia, which was of course under the control of the CIA. Helliwell was the master of drug laundering and he used the Lansky banks. Helliwell was also connected to Percival Brundage a major stockholder of the Southern Air Transport that originated with Paul Heliwell's purchase of ClaireChennault's Civil Air Transport for the CIA.
I will ask Charles if he is kind enough to elaborate further on this connection.
But the final purpose of the book is to present False Sponsors and to hide the real ones.
When i said that he tried to exonerate the money trust, he did this in a very subtle, tricky way. He did not put the section about EO 11110 in the main body of his book but in an appendix. Very subtle indeed.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

And why our dear friend Piper will not connect the drug and banking network to Percival Brundage?
Because he is backstoped by the safety cushion that absorbs all attack before it reaches the real sponsors. And that cushion is called, Israel and the Jews.
Do you see the full picture now Mark?
If you can get this then you can understand the role of Israel as a False Sponsor.

[Seamus Coogan]

Mr Stapleton ran aground with a number of people on this thread.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...old/page12

In the above thread we can see my first indepth replies to Mark's analysis.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...old/page13

Now Mark bolted from the scene fairly shortly after this lot of notes above where I examined Pipers book. Note I call him bloody Pipes lol!

This should enlighten people as to why Pipers book was never taken seriously. It appears that Israel doing it are the least of his concerns.

No ducking and diving Mark cmon?

[Albert Doyle]

Just beacause i said that does not mean that i endorse Piper's book which i consider an exercise in False sponsoring Israel.
The purpose of this book is to give to Israel, Lansky and LBJ a false sponsor status while exonerates the money trust by saying that the EO 11110 had nothing to do with
the murder.

I'm not sure you read the book because there is no mention of LBJ as a sponsor. You are just voicing the popular tide of anti-'Mastermind' rhetoric against the clearly stated case Piper presents in his book. I'm afraid your criticisms have fallen woefully short of what Piper describes and his proof that backs it.

Again, these criticisms dwell mainly on Piper's assertion that Ben Gurion was driven to a nervous breakdown by his negotiations with President Kennedy. This is traceable in fact. What this comes down to is if Ben Gurion gave some kind of order to Mossad to make a solution for this? Since we know Angleton was in a supportive position to this with his secret nuclear assistance being done behind Kennedy's back, it would not have been difficult for Ben Gurion to communicate with Angleton in this regard. Maybe he would have, maybe he had other means that didn't involve Angleton.

Just for the record, I agree that Piper's suggestion that Ben Gurion and his problem with JFK was the initiating 'sponsoring' event to the assassination is incorrect. However I strongly feel that the dismissal of this theory should not lead to the scandalous money laundry network and its association with the assassination being ignored. What Piper achieves is showing how this covert funding network was tied to main CIA interests, and how CIA and Israel had a direct self-serving interest in maintaining and protecting it against Kennedy's efforts. The mistake you make, in my opinion, is conflating Piper's flawed sponsorship claims with the very real and valid Mediterranean 'French Connection' underground that was so strongly connected to Clay Shaw, Permindex and the main US, New Orleans players in the assassination.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Albert,
If you read my last two posts you'll understand what i think of this book, and please try to answer about the appendix.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,
If you read my last two posts you'll understand what i think of this book, and please try to answer about the appendix.

Honestly I don't see how anything that you wrote has anything to do with what is being said.


Brundage was CIA. The mention or non mention of Brundage has very little to do with the Israeli-Tibor Rosenbaum-French Connection-American underground connections to the assassination. It is vital to focus on Clay Shaw and Permindex and their relationship to this cabal rather than Brundage. Banque De Credit Internationale.


EO11110 is a non-issue compared to the Lansky syndicate, CIA, Mediterranean network Piper fleshes out.

[Mark Stapleton]

I see this conversation has been moved to a more appropriate location. Good idea.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mr Stapleton ran aground with a number of people on this thread.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...old/page12

In the above thread we can see my first indepth replies to Mark's analysis.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...old/page13

Now Mark bolted from the scene fairly shortly after this lot of notes above where I examined Pipers book. Note I call him bloody Pipes lol!

This should enlighten people as to why Pipers book was never taken seriously. It appears that Israel doing it are the least of his concerns.

No ducking and diving Mark cmon?

It looks like I'll have to look more closely at your 'rebuttal' of my arguments Mr. Coogan. In the thread you bring up, I see another poster questions whether you've read the book at all. Now lets start at the beginning of your 'rebuttal':

Mark states the following: My replies are in bold.

Kennedy was killed because Israel considered his firm opposition to the Dimona project an existential threat. Ben-Gurion indicated this in his correspondence with Kennedy in 1963. Also, Kennedy insisted that military aid to Israel be tied to concessions in regard to the Palestinians. He bargained tough and wouldn't give any ground.

Your opinions. Not evidence in anyway. Kennedy opposed to the Dimona Project? The Dimona project was started well before he came to power and was aided by the French. If the Israeli's were going to be hacked off with anyone it would have been de Gaulle.

Where's the correspondance? On one hand people say it's still classified (what utter crap) and the official documents say well.......they say this.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/...rst/index.html

From Avner Cohen's Israel and the Bomb (1998) p.118: "In March 1963, Kennedy issued NSAM 231 which states:

The President desires, as a matter of urgency, that we undertake every feasible measure to improve our intelligence on the Israeli nuclear programas well as other Israeli and UAR advanced weapons programs and to arrive at a firmer evaluation of their import. In this connection he wishes the next informal inspection of the Israeli reactor complex to be undertaken promptly and to be as thourough as possible.

In view of his great concern over the destabilising impact of any Israeli or UAR program looking towards the development of nuclear weapons, the President also wishes the Department of State to develop proposals for forestalling such programs; in particular we should develop plans for seeking clearer assurances from the Governments concerned on this point, and means of impressing upon them how seriously such a development would be regarded in this country."

So it looks like Kennedy WAS opposed to the Dimona project, giving lie to your bombast Mr. Coogan.

IATB goes on to mention a conversation between Kennedy and Shimon Peres, who was in Washington on Hawk missile related business:

Kennedy: You know that we follow very closely the discovery of any nuclear development in the region. This could create a very dangerous situation. For this reason we kept in touch with your nuclear effort. What could you tell me about this?

Peres: I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region, and certainly we will not be the first. Our interest is in reducing armament, even in complete disarmament.

The citation for this is listed as Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963: Near East, 1962-1963, vol 17 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995)

NSAM 231 can also be found here:

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%9...-_1963.gif