Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

[quote=Charles Drago]Here's "Rago" opening the kimono:

Are you so desperate, Mark, to find support for your own hypotheses that you run to the arms of the likes of "Rago"?

That's pretty good.

You are the master.

[Mark Stapleton]

"Rago" is a self-admitted ignoramus ("he" celebrates the claim that "he" does not read literary analyses of the assassination). "His" techniques of flooding Internet forums with confrontational -- as opposed to informational -- material, hiding behind aliases, and attempting to establish credentials as a bona fide researcher and then putting forward outlandish theories so as to impugn the minds and motives of the larger research community are those of the agent provocateur.

Maybe we should tar and feather this person. He's trying to poison our pure minds.

[Charles Drago]

[quote=Charles Drago]Here's "Rago" opening the kimono:

"Yes I do think that Oswald was a 'patsy' and an assassin. He probably thought that he was the only assassin. I think he was a willing participant. I do not think that he knew about the other assassin

I can see someone new to the JFK case saying that. Maybe he was drunk.

I still think he makes some good posts.

At least you're stepping back from the "impressive researcher" description of "Rago" that you first offered.

So "Rago" presents lunatic ravings, but "he" get's a pass because "he's" a rookie?

Or "Rago" is a drunk, so only "his" sober posts should be taken seriously?

Stop it, Mark. You're aligning yourself with, at best, a fool -- if not an agent provocateur.

[Charles Drago]

"Rago" is a self-admitted ignoramus ("he" celebrates the claim that "he" does not read literary analyses of the assassination). "His" techniques of flooding Internet forums with confrontational -- as opposed to informational -- material, hiding behind aliases, and attempting to establish credentials as a bona fide researcher and then putting forward outlandish theories so as to impugn the minds and motives of the larger research community are those of the agent provocateur.

Maybe we should tar and feather this person. He's trying to poison our pure minds.

You just don't get it.

You've been at the EF "I'm OK, You're OK Corral" for too long, cowboy.

[Dawn Meredith]

And IMO, Rago's mission is to try and indoctrinate enough people with this nonsense to make us look like fools next year.

Yup.

Yep.

That is why he is there. It will get worse as the 50th approaches. I do not understand why Simkin allows these people to post their drivel over there. There are so many really good poeple on the JFK assassination debate part of the forum that I continue to look and post, but the entities are in large numbers as well. I have posted several times calling out "Rago" being a fake name and not once has he denied it.

Mark says it does not matter but it does to Simkin who demands real names and real pics. Or at least says he does.

Since the tragic death of his wife the rules there seem to be less enforced by him.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

It's like an echo chamber in here. No, heaven forbid Israel would never do that. It's just anti-semitic nonsense etc etc.

Give me a break please. We all know what Israel has been doing for decades: dispossession and genocide, murder of humanitarian aid workers, covert assassinations, numerous invasions and air strikes on their neighbours, attacking and murdering the occupants of foreign vessels like the Liberty and the Mavi Mara, trade in body parts, illegal development of nuclear weapons, theft of nuclear materials, poisoning Palestinians' water supply, the longest illegal occupation in modern history, corruption and capture of Western Governments (most notably the US), control of the western media. I could go on for hours.

But God forbid anyone dare accuse Israel of participating in JFK's murder. That's outrageous, preposterous, absurd, anti-semitic etc etc. Anyone who dares to mention Israel's name in connection with Dealey Plaza is branded a lunatic, a quack, a fraud, a Nazi, an evil troll. The sanctimonious indignation would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The Spanish inquisition has nothing on some of you 'researchers'.

And the evidence barely warrants a passing glance.

Mark: No one is defending Israel. US and Israel interests are tied at the hip and are beyond outrageous.

But that is a separate issue from naming the powers behind the assassination. You are so blinded by your hatred of Israel that you can't see beyond this.

Indeed so blinded that you call "Rago" impressive. Even when his bs is pointed out you defend him. And you call us blind???

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

The reason I did not review that book is because in those days we did not review books at Probe, which was a paper magazine at the time.

But even if we did do reviews back then I would not review it since the book is anti Semitic nonsense that is about as credible as Angleton and the Majestic Papers.

And IMO, Rago's mission is to try and indoctrinate enough people with this nonsense to make us look like fools next year.

I agree that Rago is a nut however that doesn't justify conflating him with Piper. Piper may be making a mistake in suggesting Israel was the primary Sponsor in the Assassination. He has to bear the consequences of that on his own. So far he chooses to refrain from defense of his thesis in public, which he again has to bear the consequences of.

I'm thinking that you didn't read Final Judgment because if you had you would have more respect for it simply because its parts are sound and withstand scrutiny. If you haven't I'm forced to point-out that you just criticized Von Pein for praising Reclaiming History without having read it and further scolded Von Pein for lack of academic integrity because of it. In my opinion any serious scholar who has read Final Judgment would avoid the obvious evasion of "anti-semitic nonsense" simply because of their fear of its evident sound components. The book has enough credible information that any person with a working knowledge of the Assassination should hesitate to label it such lest they be accused of ignoring real evidence. I would even posit that proof of the strength of the book comes from its being able to withstand such labels exactly because of the soundness of its parts. I'm surprised that persons who are well familiar with one line attempts to deny conspiracy evidence would then turn around and use them so quickly against a book that should draw more interest in what it does contain.

If people had a problem with a "Mastermind"-like claim being made by Piper I could see it because the center of gravity of the true Sponsors was very likely domestic and those Sponsors would never allow a foreign power to assassinate a US president unless they desired it. However the problem I have is the willingness of the main conspiracy intelligensia to deny the serious main-facilitator role of this emerging US/Zionist political alliance and how Piper's evidence fleshes it out. Sure, if Piper is wrong about Ben Gurion being the initiator of the assassination that doesn't justify the ignoring of a very possible main role as this Mediterranean underground became the main trunk line both politically and financially of the cabal. Phil is quick to point-out the opium-based influence of this power structure, even in the present day, but then ignores how it existed back then and how directly dependent Israel was on it in relation to Tibor Rosenbaum and the 'French Connection'. I honestly wonder if "anti-semitic nonsense" can be effectively used to deny the true affiliation of Meyer Lansky and the pro-zionist US syndicate treasurers Piper points-out and how it may be directly connected to Echevarria's statement "our new backers are Jews"? Really, could anyone who espouses a credible position in assassination research dismiss this so quickly and in such an anti-intellectual way? That's what I was trying to say is that persons with a normally high level of intellectual scrutiny suddenly display a drastic change in approach when it comes to Israel. If we analyzed Final Judgment case by case, point for point you would see it withstands these unfair dismissals. Sure Deep Politics involves a hunt for the Sponsors but that doesn't exclude hunting the main facilitators and mechanics as well.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Correct on both Dawn.

1. I do not understand why Rago is allowed to break the rules at Spartacus with impunity. Duncan exposed the fact that he is posting under a false name weeks ago. And so very likely that is a false photo also. Yet he is still allowed to continue doing so. Why have rules then if someone can break them and everyone knows it? Why don't the mods like Jeffries and Scully consult with Duncan on this and if the evidence is sound, which it seems to be, he either comes up with a real name and photo, or he is gone?

2. I take a back seat to no one in wanting the Palestinians to have their own homeland. In fact, I have gotten into arguments with some Jewish friends over this issue. As I continually point out that, prior to the end of the war, there was a map with Palestine on it, but no Israel. Today, there is an Israel with no Palestine. And I despise the Zionist ultras like Martin "Crazy" Peretz who has used his pulpit to completely distort the issue and belittle eloquent and responsible Palestinian spokesmen like the late Edward Said in the pages of the once proud New Republic. (Which under Peretz became a nutty Zionist-Neo Con cesspool.)

But to try and utilize the anger and frustration against Israel on this issue and channel it into the JFK case and hope that you can pick up some advocates that way by mentioning things like the Liberty and that Angleton manned the Israeli desk at CIA, I mean to me this is scraping around a trash bin in an anti Semitic crusade in order to dupe people for one's own purposes. Relying on their ignorance of the USA-Israel alliance in the early sixties. It was nothing like it became after the two Arab-Israeli wars--not even close.

And make no mistake, that is what Rago is doing. Consider:

1. He wants to try and revive the bullshit about CE 399 not being substituted on the way to FBI HQ. He does this by attempting to discredit the testimony of Wright and replace it with Nathan Pool. Even though Pool did not even show up until FOURTEEN YEARS later! And neither Wright nor Tomlinson ever mention the guy. So Rago wants us to reject the work of John Hunt, Aguilar and Thompson which exposes the FBI cover up that very night, all on a guy who somehow injected himself into the case 14 years later. I mean did Pool not notice that there was an FBI and WC inquiry going on in 1964? (You should read Weisberg on Pool.)

2. He wants us to think that instead of the assassin from the front being behind the picket fence at the end, with a storm drain and parking lot right near him for escape and the fence there to hide his personage, and a silenced rifle with scope to get off an accurate shot, well dead wrong for Rago--the assassin was really a policeman on the knoll with a handgun. Boy, that's really clandestine huh? How did we all miss that?

3. He wants everyone to think that somehow people like Garrison, Melanson, and Newman were all barking up the wrong tree by saying the CIA was the prime suspect in the case. And he wants us all to forget all the good evidence they,and others, have produced to demonstrate that. Instead, he wants us to all take on the mantle of a group as anti Semitic as the Holocaust denying Spotlight and now say that, shit, how could we have missed it? Who cares about Sylvia Odio; who cares about 544 Camp Street; who cares about Phillips and the CIA's anti FPCC program; who cares that Oswald was part of the CIA's fake defector program and working under Phillips as an anti FPCC agent provocateur; who cares about the complex charade down in Mexico City in which the CIA brilliantly ensnared Oswald like a rat in a trap seven weeks before the assassination; who cares about Ruth and Michael Paine being accessories after the fact and producing all the false evidence for both the JFK case, the Walker shooting, and Mexico City; who cares about George DeM being asked by the CIA to befriend Oswald on his return from Russia; who cares about the rightwing White Russian community befriending the alleged commie and doing their best to separate Marina from Lee; who cares about Shaw and Ferrie and Oswald in Clinton and Jackson that summer etc etc.

See this is all in Rago's jibberish, "Barking up the wrong tree". It was the Mossad. Even though you cannot connect them to any of the above. He wants us to throw all this powerful evidence out the door and embrace Spotlight and the nutty Final Judgment.

Either the guy is a fruit or he is an agent. But in any case, what is he still going at Spartacus? I mean will they not be happy until everyone leaves and all that is left is Von Pein and Rago?

PS: For the record, I did read Final Judgment. As with many disinfo books on this case, I threw it out.

[Albert Doyle]

But to try and utilize the anger and frustration against Israel on this issue and channel it into the JFK case and hope that you can pick up some advocates that way by mentioning things like the Liberty and that Angleton manned the Israeli desk at CIA, I mean to me this is scraping around a trash bin in an anti Semitic crusade in order to dupe people for one's own purposes. Relying on their ignorance of the USA-Israel alliance in the early sixties. It was nothing like it became after the two Arab-Israeli wars--not even close.


PS: For the record, I did read Final Judgment. As with many disinfo books on this case, I threw it out.

Ah, but the Liberty and Angleton's being CIA liaison to Israel could actually be evidence of this alliance. Just because you scoff them doesn't mean it isn't evidence. I'm surprised because you normally practice a higher level of scholarly scrutiny than this. If you did respectful justice to what Piper actually wrote you would see that both Clay Shaw and Angleton had deep connections to the formative Mossad through the OSS in Italy that is highly relevant to the Assassination and the cabal behind it. I'm shocked at you because you make a business out of criticizing others for doing this kind of critical omission.

Your logic is also flawed because you fail to recognize how Piper details the actual dynamic transfer or Passage Of Power to Israel (you admit above) via the zionist Kennedy assassination cabal. It isn't a mistake that relationship happened after JFK's assassination and I think you have no right to not only ignore it, as you do, but to dismiss it in such short terms. If you actually honored the integrity of Final Judgment you would find Piper discovered some very credible and valuable stuff in that trash bin. Everything that you haven't discussed.

I'm afraid you've tossed both Mary's Mosaic and Final Judgment a little too quickly. In fact I hold that the main Assassination researchers' fear of Zionist restriction of Israel's role in the assassination is evidence itself of that involvement. If you know anything about CIA this is where they hide their doings. Behind divisive divide and conquer internal disruption. I believe this isn't a case of rogue claims damaging assassination research integrity as much as unfair denial damaging the integrity of the truth behind Israel's involvement (in whatever form that came). I also hold that it is more than coincidence that JFK's letters to Ben Gurion and the JFK files are both still classified. Nor is the letter in Sirhan's pocket claiming defense of Palestine unrelated either.

In the end you haven't touched most of what Piper elaborated nor explained Echevarria's comment.

[Jim DiEugenio]

As Cyril Wecht once said about Baden and his new trajectory for the SBT in accordance with JFK's position in the Z film:

"Yes, and if my mother had a penis, she'd be my father."

Keep on trying to be a contortionist Albert. Maybe one day you will be on TV.