Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

Unless you spent your life devising Cold War tactics of intelligence/counter-intelligence I do not believe it is possible to KNOW what layer of the onion we are looking at... That those involved in Cold War profiteering would have a huge stake in the death of JFK snf could have been part of it either willingly or be association.


That's all I meant.. Israel as false sponsor to keep the eyeballs looking in a different direction... as false sponsor story hat carries with it it's own insulation.. and just enough vague truths to snare those willing to accept it.

Thanks for that David. These are the two points I want to focus on.

In your first paragraph you are presupposing that JFK's death was a result of Cold War rivalries. That's what Angleton always said and I don't agree with this presumption.

As for the second, Israel has never been submitted as a false sponsor by those who planned the assassination, imo. They were not even suggested by anyone as playing a role in the assassination until the 1990's. If they are a false sponsor, cleverly planted by those who wish to muddy the trail, why did they wait thirty years to do so?

And therefore, is Piper guilty of planting a false sponsor? For what reason would he do this?

Three points FWIW:

1. I read David's "those involved in Cold War profiteering" NOT necessarily -- or even primarily -- as a reference to individuals commonly identified as Cold War "rivals." Indeed, as George Michael Evica and I, among others, have indicated, among the ranks of the highest level Facilitators in the JFK conspiracy and cover-up are intelligence and military officers whose "masters were above Cold War differences."

2. While the KNOWINGLY FALSE, cover-up-enhancing charge that Israelis were SPONSORS of the JFK conspiracy may not have surfaced publicly until the '90s, we have no way of knowing when the "Israel did it" card first was played far behind the scenes. Your charge that there was a 30-year delay before that play was made is without merit -- not to mention glaringly devoid of deep political insight.

3. Piper's motives in the aggregate stand as a valuable focus of inquiry. Why might he have facilitated a False Sponsor gambit? What were the factors that might account for the timing of his actions? Was/is he an LN? A conspirator? A patsy? Good questions.

[Albert Doyle]

Three points FWIW:

1. I read David's "those involved in Cold War profiteering" NOT necessarily -- or even primarily -- as a reference to individuals commonly identified as Cold War "rivals." Indeed, as George Michael Evica and I, among others, have indicated, among the ranks of the highest level Facilitators in the JFK conspiracy and cover-up are intelligence and military officers whose "masters were above Cold War differences."

2. While the KNOWINGLY FALSE, cover-up-enhancing charge that Israelis were SPONSORS of the JFK conspiracy may not have surfaced publicly until the '90s, we have no way of knowing when the "Israel did it" card first was played far behind the scenes. Your charge that there was a 30-year delay before that play was made is without merit -- not to mention glaringly devoid of deep political insight.

3. Piper's motives in the aggregate stand as a valuable focus of inquiry. Why might he have facilitated a False Sponsor gambit? What were the factors that might account for the timing of his actions? Was/is he an LN? A conspirator? A patsy? Good questions.

While I agree with this in general because of what I have learned about the Deep Political model, I would caution not to throw out the baby with Deep Political bath water and realize the circumstantial scenario Piper isolates may be evidence of when that play happened whether Piper incorrectly described it in Sponsor terms or not. As I've always said from the beginning Piper is valuable because I believe he shows a main facilitator that many resent being exposed. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out on a Deep Political basis in my opinion.

I also totally agree with Mark in his citing of David's errors (that some appear to be comfortable with while pointing out the errors of Piper with a microtome). David is obviously attempting to gloss over issues that deserve closer and more accurate treatment. You cannot answer the matter of Ben-Gurion's behavior by saying "Israel was getting the bomb anyway," or "Israel always says its future existence is threatened." I think most in here know how that would be treated by these same persons if the other side attempted it.

[Charles Drago]

"Israel" did it is as meaningless an accusation as "the CIA" or "the government" did it.

Just what did Israeli Facilitators facilitate?

[Albert Doyle]

At 210 above 1237 words insist the elephant is in the room.

Piper presents seven hundred seventy pages insisting the elephant is Israel.

Waldron-Hartmann insist in the seven-hundred-word Ultimate Sacrifice the elephant may be the mob, as does North.

Zirbel-McClellan-Nelson and Larry Flynt's stepson insist the elephant is LBJ.

None of it is compelling but all of the proponents appear obsessive-compulsive.

Additional blue books submitted in the manner of the test-taker desperately faking.

Some aspects of Israel/Mob/LBJ are more suggestive than others but none are adequately dispositive.

Sure, but my problem with this is Piper is offering more accurate information than those posters who deny it. I guess my problem here is Deep Political advocates who use the DP model to deny factual information at the facilitator level. Which I believe is clearly being done here. Perhaps Echevarria's statement is equal to Johnson's alleged statement that those damn Kennedy's won't be bothering me any more. At least Echevarria's was documented. So this really isn't a matter of the Israeli elephant being in the room as much as basic recognition that Israel was involved at some level or that Dimona was used to leverage them in. What this comes down to is most people don't question that Johnson was involved in the conspiracy, at least at the cover-up level. However if you view the facilitator suggestion towards Israel there's a violent resistance (as evidenced here) to even admit the basic facts of facilitator involvement which Piper evidences in credit-deserving detail. If you want to put Piper on the false sponsor pile fine. But don't put his facilitator evidence or those who back it on that same pile.

Additional blue books submitted in the manner of the test-taker desperately faking.

Some aspects of Israel/Mob/LBJ are more suggestive than others but none are adequately dispositive.

Sorry Phil but in my opinion you can't ignore the gigantic "elephant" Israel has become since the assassination. Nor how it is the biggest benefactor and current partner of that same shadow government that came to be after Kennedy's assassination. And speaking of faking tests, remember the false facility Israel constructed for Kennedy's inspectors. LBJ and the US mob have gone by the wayside since Kennedy's assassination. What has Israel become? Honestly? Mearsheimer and Walt and Jimmy Carter are not Nelson. In the end Piper's facts aren't dismissable either, and that's what counts.

[Charles Drago]

[Israel] is the biggest benefactor and current partner of that same shadow government that came to be after Kennedy's assassination.

Wrong on all counts.

To make a convincing "biggest beneficiary" argument, one must catalog all beneficiaries of the JFK assassination, describe the benefits that accrued to each, and then quantify the benefits via application of metrics that can measure comparatively the values of everything from the satisfaction of personal vendetta to the service of spiritual agenda.

And what of the "shadow government" that attempted to overthrow FDR?

Or that struck Abraham Lincoln?

Or that did in Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus?

And how could a "shadow government that came to be after Kennedy's assassination" have acted before the assassination to bring about the event that would give birth to it?

Are chrononauts to be the latest addition to our line of False Sponsors?

What is the color of the sky on "your" world?

[Albert Doyle]

"Israel" did it is as meaningless an accusation as "the CIA" or "the government" did it.

Just what did Israeli Facilitators facilitate?

"Israel did it" in this context is like saying I'm saying they were the Sponsor. I've made clear many times that anyone who understands the Assassination on a Deep Political basis would see that the conspiracy was well underway, as Douglass shows, long before the alleged initiating events Piper cites. However that is not to say those events were not involved. I think they were. I also think Echevarria's comment evidences this. So, in effect, you are citing something there that steers clear of the actual argument here.

Also, I think you go too far in not acknowledging, that as long as members of CIA were involved, (which they were) that if the CIA itself denies the true history of the assassination then it is involved as an institution at some level. I say respectfully, that I think your view above doesn't recognize this institutional participation and CIA responsibility for the actions of its members. In my opinion, you can recognize this CIA participation and responsibility without compromising the Deep Political perspective.


Sorry Charles, but if you read the content of this thread I honestly believe we are beyond that at this point. I believe the issue is was Echevarria's comment directly connected to Israel's involvement and was Ben-Gurion's behavior indicative of this?


I think the answer to what did the facilitators facilitate is best answered by Piper. Now it would be hard to show how this alleged backing was actually involved at the mechanic level in Dallas, if at all. Piper stresses Ruby and Braden. With Braden he shows how he was connected to Mickey Cohen's west coast gang. The book itself then fleshes-out all the suspected facilitators who operated under zionist influence. I personally think the most effective illustration of how this was facilitated was at the Lansky/Rosenbaum Swiss bank level if you follow the money. This was the bridge to CIA interests which were not an easily dismissible or ignorable entity in the assassination.

[Albert Doyle]

I'd like to point to my post #210 and the responses that followed and point-out that I was accused of ad hominem a few pages back.


I wish people would answer the points. I think we are acceptably past the issue of Ben-Gurion's stress-related departure from Israeli government being real or not. I'd also like people to observe the drastic difference in posts in relation to Piper's material and relevant discussion of it.

LOL

Real, yes.... why, not so much.

Mark asks, "what proof is good enough"... that JFK and Dimona was the leading cause and in turn was the REASON for his assassination?

Not a matter of good enough... just a matter of conveying your conclusion... and the sources and info offered simply shows he was a world leader at a difficult time with the same pressures as many leaders... only HE has the USA/Britain /France as allies AND they are constructing the damn thing anyway...

So I guess the proof required is such that anyone reading it can come to the same conclusion...

ie c2766 was ordered as C20-T750 which was, in Feb, was a M91/38TS rifle...
C2766 is a M91/38 FC rifle, one of a 100 in a shipment.
The microfilm with the Kleins orders WAS TAKEN and IS an WC Exhibit and does contain orders prior to and after Hidell's order.
Except there is not one other order available showing that a "FC" rifle was being shipped for C20-T750 since August 1962...
or an order to show WHAT THESE ORDER FROM AUG WERE BEING SHIPPED....

Is it fair to say this is PROOF that Hidell's order was a joke... not really. But it does make sense that if one order had shipped this rifle as a replacement, others did too, other than Hidell... the FBI not printingany other orders is suspect... plus wouldn't you thinkif other people had been receieinv a "FC" rifle in the months prior to the assassination INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY ORDERED... and then JFK is killed with the SAME RIFLE the mistakenly got...

Someone would have said something..

DJ

I'm not sure that answers anything I said in my post. As far as the matter at hand, so far it looks like Ben-Gurion's condition follows the regular pattern of reporting such incidents. That those members of Israeli government who said he was driven to a state of paranoia by his exchanges with Kennedy over Israel's nuclear weapons are telling the truth and the rest are doing damage control. The statements from those government witnesses fit this usual pattern of some telling the truth and others covering it up as was shown in the Kennedy assassination and the statements from American government members. Remember, David refuses to answer whether Douglass' evidence of Kennedy putting pressure on all governments for nuclear detente is relevant. He also refuses to give any honest interpretation of Ben-Gurion's statement that JFK was threatening the future existence of Israel. David, if Kennedy wasn't denying Ben-Gurion nuclear weapons then why would he say this? David says this is a common statement from Israel, but he fails to follow-through and admit what usually follows after Israel makes that statement.

It's funny because I think some fail to register how this debate itself and the reactions it attracts is a microcosm, and therefore proof of sorts, of Ben-Gurion's reaction.


In the end David, once again, tries to minimize Kennedy. This is something that LNer's do, even though David tries to portray us as acting like LNer's. David tries to say that Kennedy was not unlike any other leader. However The Unspeakable shows otherwise. It shows that Kennedy was the leader of the world attempting an unprecedented effort towards world peace.

Someone would have said something..

I can't understand how David would avoid realizing, while posing us as the LNer's, that this is a classic LN quote. I think it says a lot. As does his attempt to, once again, switch the subject to irrelevant assassination material.

[Charles Drago]

Also, I think you go too far in not acknowledging, that as long as members of CIA were involved, (which they were) that if the CIA itself denies the true history of the assassination then it is involved as an institution at some level. I say respectfully, that I think your view above doesn't recognize this institutional participation and CIA responsibility for the actions of its members. In my opinion, you can recognize this CIA participation and responsibility without compromising the Deep Political perspective.

Is English "your" native tongue?

[Greg Burnham]

Albert,

I have rarely seen anyone twist the meaning of another's words or mis-state another's position more drastically than you have regarding David's posts. It is beneath you.

[Charles Drago]

Albert,

I have rarely seen anyone twist the meaning of another's words or mis-state another's position more drastically than you have regarding David's posts. It is beneath you.

No it isn't.