Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

Ah bollocks. There's no authenticated proof of any of the known or unknown suspects' guilt in JFK's murder.

"Authenticated" by whom?

Yes exactly.

Non-responsive.

[Keith Millea]

At least you don't throw rotten tomatoes from the cheap seats.

Well Mark,

Albert throws around more cheap shots than probably anyone currently on this forum.It was just a couple of weeks ago that he called Bill Kelly a CIA propagandist (Bill Kelly for Christ sakes).So,Albert is a big boy,and I think he can handle my little jabs,eh?

As for your cute little remark.....What can I say????

Here try this!

[Albert Doyle]

I have found, especially on these forums, that the poster can't hide from the evidence...
They can rant and rave and misdirect and confuse... but when it comes right down to it, they can't convince or persuade if there is nothing credible to support them.

Talk about chutzpah. This is bordering on trolling. David has the incredible balls to suggest his transparent diversions are the rule here and the simple questions he refuses to answer aren't. While accusing us of "misdirecting," as he says, with our direct reference to Piper's material that he refuses to answer in public, he dares suggest his contrived diversions of general conspiracy history are what isn't being answered here. Classic.

Identifying things like "Mindset" and "would lead to's" and "could mean's" from the evidence results in pure speculation.
Piper and these two are speculating based on the information THEY'VE chosen to read, and with very narrow interpretations.

"Very narrow interpretations" that David conspicuously can't answer in public. There's a simple rule here. The more bs you have to enter to get around simple facts you can't answer the more there's something there that needs to be gotten around. David has succeeded in lowering the debate to his desired pissing contest, but he still hasn't honestly answered the basic questions while accusing us of the same.

You are right Don, I firmly believe that many of the world's "bad guys", Mossad and international Jews included, would benefit from the removal of the "peace" president and would have "done their part if asked"...
Oil, Military, Mafia, Birchers, CIA, FBI, SS, ONI, LBJ, JEH, etc.... all benefited from the removal of this man and his policies...

...AND??? David has an annoying habit of admitting Israeli involvement but then qualifying it with vague equivocations that never seem to make any point. When told that he has admitted something there that has gotten others ostracized and accused of being vile anti-semites he doesn't respond. The obvious point is, that of all the other organizations he tries to spread blame out towards, how many of them were called "new jew backers" by one of the conspirators a day prior to the assassination? Somehow, with all his evasive filler, David never quite gets around to explaining that.

Does Israel feel better when their Big Brother the USA has its finger on the button ready to blow up Arabs? of course... but that was not JFK's way.

...AND??? All you are doing there is reinforcing Piper's thesis while denying it at the same time. The fact it wasn't JFK's way (which is correct) is what led to his difficulty with Ben-Gurion and eventually what got him assassinated. David is dishonest because what he is saying here is, yes, Piper has validity, but then concluding the opposite when it comes time to admit it. David is a creature of the grey area. When asked to come out in sunlight with direct answers to simple questions he submits his grey area is the only valid domain.

I agree 100% it wasn't JFK's way. In fact that's why he tried to prevent Israeli nukes. And that's why Ben-Gurion had his breakdown. And why the Assassination suddenly had new backers. While indirectly admitting all this in statements like he makes here, David will show all this stuff only to return and say there isn't enough proof. Ha!

How in the world are YOU or Piper supposed to know what causes a man's nervous breakdown? I've been to every instance of Gurion's name in the book
and the only thing that repeats is this "Sy Hersh" SECRET WAR where JFK refuses to allow Israel to build a weapons program, all the while BG is lying to the USA and JFK while doing it anyway.

If anything, the book should be seen as an indictment of BG for turning his back on his greatest ally. and then to have FRANCE go behind our backs and provide the help is even more an indictment against DeGaulle and his lack of understanding of what it means to be an ALLY....

At least you're admitting the nervous breakdown now. Before you were demanding proof for it. While pretending to possess a superior academic approach David forgets that Ben-Gurion's mental collapse, that drove him out of office, was said to have been caused by his dealings with Kennedy over Israel's nuclear weapons. This was recorded in books cited by Mark. It was witnessed by those around him in the Israeli government. Your offerings here are rubbish David and fail to register the factual record. Your desperate attempt to make that proven record other than what it is is apparent - which only accents the travesty of your assumed superiority in this debate. David just tripped and stumbled in one of his own hoops. David's pedantic forcing of all this to Sy Hersh isn't working because the evidence exists well outside of the confines of Hersh. It exists in conformity to Piper's thesis as the simple questions David refuses to answer proves. David is not dodging those questions because of Sy Hersh. And, yes, Ben-Gurion did turn his back on JFK.

Isn't this EXACTLY what I've been saying all along and explain above? or am I missing something? Piper IS WRONG Albert... yes... Israel was getting a bomb whether JFK liked it or not... and he STILL sold them Hawks.

Nice try David, but no. You're dishonest because this has already been explained to you. The correct context of the Hawk sales (and not your jerry-built clutsy evasion version) is that JFK had to placate Israel and its lobbies with some kind of assurance of US backing for its defense. The Hawk missiles were the way of doing that while still maintaining his tough stand on Israeli nuclear weapons. David's desperation to grasp at this is obvious but he is only doing this to try and justify his false scenario against the obvious facts. And, no, it isn't what David has been "exactly" saying. David doesn't ever exactly say anything as his refusal to answer simple questions shows. David is dishonest because my statement was clear that Piper was wrong about initiating sponsorship but not wrong about his diagramming of Israeli involvement. In the end David swings his kimono out broadly by schmoozing "Hey, Israel was going to get nukes anyway". Despite all the evidence and sophisticated arguments that simplistic viewpoint runs roughshod across. Like Israel not being able to have an excuse for not cooperating in JFK's test ban treaty detente as shown in the widely praised Unspeakable. People love The Unspeakable, that is, up to the point it proves Piper.

Piper says Israel/Mossad/BG/Lansky/Permindex were behind the Assassination and
that ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM and JFK's insistance on inspection and cooperation was the reason...
Dimona was the reason BG, the Mossad, Lansky/CIA/Permindex get together and plot JFK's death.

The more likely case is that Israel was firmly brought in to the assassination and its cover-up by this impasse. An important switch was thrown and the existing underground CIA government that existed on the Israeli side as the Mediterranean underground suddenly became the official power. And this is something that's played-out ever since. May I say that when you compare my input vs David's in this debate that David has a real set of balls posing himself as possessing the superior argument. I have pointed out that none of the scapegoats you attempt to pass equal blame off on to have the strongest lobby in world history sitting right in the middle of the US government. Nor do any of those scapegoats have the US war power fighting zionist wars as their 'raison detre'. Nice try David, but your dishonestly-constructed counter scenario doesn't quite achieve the task of overlapping this truth or displacing it. David even admits this unholy relationship but never quite gets around to what point he's making?

Piper does not DISCOVER anything that was not already known... Permindex, as shown, was way more than some Lansky/Mossad/CIA clearinghouse...
How does Piper forget about Nagy, the Italians and the hunt for communists and facists?

Gladio is not mentioned ONCE in Piper's book... not once...
How can an accurate history of the CIA/Mossad in Europe along with a "set up of the situation of the time" NOT include this secret army, it's purpose, its funding and its activities?

Because with Piper/Al/Mark it's all Israel all the time.... (kinda like "3 bullets, no more no less")
with that type of preconception of the events... how else can THREE bullets do all that damage but the SBT... ?

This is just evasive filibuster David and you're not getting away with it. Smart and honest people will see you can only say what you say above if you ignore the operative evidence you refuse to answer. This is all directly tied to the meaning of "new jew backers" in the context of JFK's battle with Ben-Gurion. Wise people will see that your general evasions are only possible if you ignore Piper's evidence as you do. Those entities you use to evade Piper's context have nothing to do with Israel's direct interests in the assassination. A truthful rendering of them would show that Israel was so networked in to that CIA power in Europe that it could safely rely on it post-assassination and did. In the end, in David's classic tradition, it's his arguments that don't show any thing new. Piper, on the other hand, reveals deeply scandalous, unpopular, and previously-undisclosed assassination conspiracy evidence very valuable to deep political understanding. David's kivetching is just noise compared to this and should be treated as so.

Since the question includes the answer's assumption there is no arguing it... from: "The Warren Report, The Truth, and Arlen Specter" by Gaeton Fonzi
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics...ecter.html

And when Specter is confronted with evidence which conflicts with his conclusions,
he usesas the Commission Report often dida form of reverse logic to refute
it. For instance: "Talk about the grassy knoll and shots?" he says. "The
bullets didn't enter from that direction."

Columnist Murray Kempton has said: "The case against Oswald badly needs an
unimpeachable eyewitness."

David, once again, tries to draw the debate out into irrelevant, ruminating discussion of non-related assassination material. Pure evidence of his attempt to filibuster around the operative evidence. David, once again, doing a ballsy reversal of who is assuming the Lone Nut position here and denying the conspiracy evidence.

the case against Israel needs AUTHENTICATED proof, not just speculative coincidences and faith... from THAT argument on ANY topic, I will not back down
Cheers
DJ

Your filibustering bullshit in combination with your flagrant dodging of simple questions should be all the "evidence" most honest people need. A sure sign of guilt is people who shout loudly for "Authenticated proof" when the evidence is obvious. I beg people to notice that, while labeling Mark and myself as being like Specter, that this is the exact method persons like Von Pein and other well-known LNer's use against the assassination evidence. David proudly boasts of refusing to back down, but like Cinque, spears himself on his own lack of anything backing that.

Thank you very much for doing that in public David. Please go and put your clothes back on. Your protesting too much has been duly noted.

[David Josephs]

the case against Israel needs AUTHENTICATED proof, not just speculative coincidences and faith... from THAT argument on ANY topic, I will not back down
Cheers
DJ

Ah bollocks. There's no authenticated proof of any of the known or unknown suspects' guilt in JFK's murder. Why should the case against Israel require authenticated proof when nothing has been proven against anyone else to this day?

David, I have no gripe with you personally but you have made some bizarre comments during the course of this thread. Albert and myself have been trying to keep you focussed on the issue, but you often meander off. Obviously this is an issue which divides people like few other issues do, but I respect your contributions (without necessarily agreeing with them).

At least you don't throw rotten tomatoes from the cheap seats.

thanks Mark... appreciated.

I, as well, harbor no ill will at all... you are more than entitled to your opinions... and to chose whatever sources you'd like to support them.

What we DO HAVE, IMO, is authenticated proof that the WCR/FBI was wrong and maliciously so...
What I believe we do have is authenticated/coroborrated proof that someone was firing shots from the GK...
as well as the proof that Oswald changed clothes between the TSBD and the Theater... The descriptions of his clothes, especially from Bledsoe, is focused on what he was wearing when arrested... I think they provided that info to her not knowing about his changing his clothes... The NOTES from Fritz and the Book out report were buried and thought non-existent...

Anyway... Mark... what is glaringly noticeable is your side-stepping the information/questions I post...
You don't think it strange not to mention Gladio or Golitsyn in a book about the POSSIBLE origins of JFK's assassination eminating from that part of the world? That including Permindex and neglecting to inform readers of the NON-JEWISH RELATED activites of this CIA front? That the US's Cold War fear of Communism was MUCH GREATER than OUR concerns for Israel and their desire for OUR BLESSING on a nuclear weapon.

That, if Golitsyn is correct and the French SDECE was overrun by the KGB, then EVERYONE knew about Israels's Dimona secret... GB puts JFK into a position whereby he either alienates 90% of the region's population or disappoints Israel on this nuclear question... Does it STOP Israel? nope. STOP France? Nope.

So while I appreciate Piper trying to make a point... he appears to do so in an insulated chamber where none of the other realities of the time are incorporated into the picture...
Where Angleton & Mossad/Israel are virtually the same entity, and where a president's request for cooperation from an ally is met with an assassination attempt...

I'd prefer a bit more context and darker lines connecting the dots - if someone is going to call Israel out - and deservedly so, the "EVIDENCE" should be "AUTHENTICATED and COROBORRATED", not "Would have's" and "Could be's" with conjecture on a person's FRAME OF MIND.... like asking why Oswald went home on thursday the 21st... you dont get the impression he was ORDERED to do so? Don't we need to include the man Yates picks up and drops off? Without knowledge of that activity, Oswald's Thursday trip is MORE ominous... add it into the narrative and all of a sudden there is something much more sinister going on.

CONTEXT Mark... that's all I ask. When I go look and find Piper's "facts" are a very narrow interpretation of the source material, I get concerned.

So Mark... what other areas of Deep Politics are you most interersted in? I will go look at your profile and past posts so I can see..

Cheers - I really do appreciate a spirited discussion with well armed players
DJ

[David Josephs]

Albert... maybe it's time to up the dosage on your meds?




Again Albert... you're all rhetoric and no substance...

Saying, "the evidence is out there, really, go find it" is one helluva lame way to support your argument.

Your inability to follow my posts (ie BG's breakdown - I NEVER asked for proof of the breakdown, but PROOF that JFK and BG's lying about it to the USA, or rather JFK's HA(E)RSH insistence on an ally's cooperation
would send him over the edge... let's see, are the sources for his breakdown other ISRAELI'S :lol: )

and then your deleting YOUR comment in your reply, that I addressed, is amateurish at best.

YOU WROTE: Did you not?
Just to make it clear I think Piper is wrong in his suggestion Ben-Gurion was the initiating sponsor of the assassination.

Yet when you QUOTE/REPLY you conveniently erase it and only quote my response to it:...

Originally Posted by David Josephs
Isn't this EXACTLY what I've been saying all along and explain above? or am I missing something? Piper IS WRONG Albert... yes... Israel was getting a bomb whether JFK liked it or not... and he STILL sold them Hawks.

Nice try David, but no. You're dishonest because this has already been explained to you


Yes indeed Albert... you yourself explained it in your posted sentence above.... and then avoided the issue by deleting it in your response... "kettle calling pot black?"

and also yes indeed Albert... anyone reading this thread can easily decide for themselves who is intellectually dishonest
and who quotes chapter and verse with a request for an explanation only to be met with insults, a rant and rave, and more hollow rhetorical BS.

DJ

[Charles Drago]

I'm moving ever closer to being convinced that our vituperative, verbose correspondent should be addressed as "Albert, et al."

[Mark Stapleton]

At least you don't throw rotten tomatoes from the cheap seats.

Well Mark,

Albert throws around more cheap shots than probably anyone currently on this forum.It was just a couple of weeks ago that he called Bill Kelly a CIA propagandist (Bill Kelly for Christ sakes).So,Albert is a big boy,and I think he can handle my little jabs,eh?

As for your cute little remark.....What can I say????

Here try this!

The sad and unfathomable fact is that Bill is an ardent supporter of America's wars of adventure in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He really thinks America has the right to intervene and 'fix' these societies. I've argued with him about this several times.

Bill is also a big boy, and being called a CIA propagandist is not really a vicious insult. I've seen heaps worse.

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm moving ever closer to being convinced that our vituperative, verbose correspondent should be addressed as "Albert, et al."

That's a cheap shot Charles.

[Dawn Meredith]

Can we close this idiotic thread? It's very sad that the threads that get all the posts are argumentative insulting bullcrap...

The point by the two fanatical "Jooos did it" "members"- (??- CD HAS a point here) -has been made over and over and over. Enough already.

This is turning into name calling and not the forum we envisioned.

I knowI am NOT the only one who feels this way.

Merci,
Dawn

[Charles Drago]

No, Mark. Mine is not a "cheap shot."

Rather, it is a deeply considered judgment informed by similar experiences with similar phenomena within similar contexts and evidenced by the examples herein provided.

From this writer's perspective, more than one correspondent is posting under the "Albert Doyle" identity.

But I very well could be wrong. "Albert Doyle" may be far more complex and troubled a psyche than I've thought likely.