30-10-2012, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2012, 04:57 PM by Charles Drago.)
Mark Stapleton Wrote:
Charles Drago Wrote: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.
It's a bit rich, unless you know who the sponsors were, to claim it's a 'knowingly false, cover-up-enhancing charge'.
You only need a bunch of like minded and well connected people who liked Israel a lot more than they liked Kennedy.
They don't all need to be Israelis. I can think of a few off the top of my head: Ben-Gurion, Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Ruby. Of course, there's many more.
Again you avoid a direct response. So what's new? I'm begging you, Mark: read carefully and for meaning.
Please share with us, in detail, your own JFK conspiracy model. When you do, please provide a thorough description of the pre-requisites for Sponsorship.
And all the pouting tears in the watercolor words have failed to show "Israel" performing any role in the assassination of JFK.
I would like Phil to explain how Angleton, who was manipulating Oswald's file and supplying nuclear materials behind Kennedy's back to Dimona, would stay out of complicity in Ben-Gurion's problem with JFK? Remember, Piper shows how Angleton was directly involved in the formation of Mossad and helped train its founding members how to be an intelligence agency. Having this much connection to both the nuclear issue that drove Ben-Gurion from office and the CIA end of the conspiracy, would it be likely Angleton wasn't involved? I would say we don't have proof in the same sense we don't have proof of any fence shooter in Dealey Plaza. Clearly this issue is one where some prefer a politically-motivated bias and others prefer the obvious facts. David, in his myopic zeal, will probably respond in outrage that I deny a fence shooter in Dealey Plaza, but it's pretty clear what's going on here.
Who were the "new jew backers" Echevarria was referring to and what was their purpose? David says Cuba and Cuba alone. I say Piper's evidence shows it was impossible for any backers to back Cuba at that depth and not be interlinked with the main assassination cabal. It is classic of CIA's plausible deniability modus operandi to bring this new backing in for Cuba while using it for another purpose that served the real sponsors. A purpose now fulfilled and embodied by today's world scene.
Sorry, Phil but "Israel" was the chosen term of Ben-Gurion when he said JFK threatened its future existence.
(I say this with respect to Phil who is like an angel whose wings flutter even further into the ether of truth than Douglass with his content and allusion-rich poetry)
At 235 above the ghost of Allen Dulles rails at David Lifton
(Nothing is going to be 'proved'. How much has been 'proven' in last 49 years?)
From David Lifton:
"I wanted to ask just one question, I said, "and get your comments on it." One of the most important conclusions of the Commission, I began, was that there was no evidence of conspiracy. "Wasn't it," said Dulles, correcting me, and punctuating the air with his finger as he spoke, "we have found no evidence of conspiracy?" I proceeded to describe the motion of the President's head on the Zapruder film and some of the grassy-knoll testimony. How could the Commission Report make a statement like that, in view of all that evidence ?
Dulles responded: "We examined the film a thousand times," and he proceeded to deny that the motion I described appeared on the film. As he answered, I retrieved from my briefcase a demonstration panel prepared by Ray Marcus in which the relevant portions of all frames between 313 and 323 were arranged in sequence on one 8-1/2 by 11-inch page.
The backward motion was obvious. I walked over to Dulles, and put one of the panels on his lap. "Here," I said, kneeling beside him, "I know these are not the best reproductions, but just look at the President's head and the rear seat of the car, and see if they get closer together or farther apart in successive frames after impact."
"Now what are you saying . . . just what are you saying?" said Dulles, his voice rising.
"I'm saying there must be someone up front firing at Kennedy, and that means a conspiracy," I replied.
"Look," he said, "there isn't a single iota of evidence indicating a conspiracy . . . no one says there was anything like that . . ."
As politely as possible I described the statistics in Harold Feldman's "Fifty-Two Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll," closing with the fact that several people on the overpass saw smoke coming from the area behind the fence, and that a policeman "even smelled smoke there."
"Look," he paused, and then, his voice rising again, angrily, "What are you talking about? Who saw smoke?" he thundered, sounding as though I had fabricated the information out of whole cloth.
"Sam Holland, for instance," I replied. "He was standing on the overpass." I named a few others, and said that anyone could buy the book Four Days, turn to page 21 and see, in color, what was apparently a puff of smoke on the Nix film frame published there.
By now, Dulles had worked himself into a lather.
"Now what are you saying," he roared, "that someone was smoking up there?" His attempt at ridicule was unmistakable. "Are you telling me," he continued, "that there was no one up in that building, that no gun was found there, that no shells were found there?"
"Oh, no, sir," I said, feigning surprise. "I'm sure there was a gun there. I'm sure there were shells there. I think someone was shooting from there. But I think someone was also shooting from up front. Harold Feldman analyzed all that testimony and quotes witnesses who even heard shots from two locations."
"Just who," asked Dulles in an extremely sarcastic tone, "is Harold Feldman?"
While I was certain Dulles knew who Feldman was, I answered by describing him as "a writer, sir, a freelance writer . . ."
"And who does he write for?" inquired Dulles.
" . . . He frequently writes for the Nation."
Dulles raised his right hand, slapped his knee with a savage intensity, and laughed loudly and derisively.
"The Nation! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha."
There was an embarrassing silence. No one laughed with him.
Politely, I interjected: "I don't think that is so funny, sir. I don't care what magazine the article was printed in either the right or the left. The article is well written, and it is accurately footnoted."
"You say the Nation is accurately footnoted, eh?" replied Dulles.
Dulles now turned to the group and said: "I don't know if you're really all interested in this, and if you're not, we'd just as well . . ." His voice trailed off as he was met by anxious murmurs: "Oh, no, we're interested. No, keep going," etc. So he shrugged and we continued sparring.
Dulles looked down at the photographs on his lap and claimed he couldn't see what was there. "Look, there isn't one iota of evidence that the shots came from the front. How can you say such a thing?"
"Mr. Dulles," I said, "I'm showing you this evidence, and I've told you about the eyewitness testimony, which was taken under oath and certainly qualifies as evidence. And I'm absolutely amazed to hear you deny the existence of all this . . ."
Dulles got very angry. "You have nothing! Absolutely nothing! The head could be going around in circles for all I can see. You can't see a thing here! I have examined the film in the Archives many times. This proves nothing"
Phil's footnote: Allen Dulles provides the final punctuation for all defenders of the Castle: This proves nothing. And yet we do not concur.
Now, Albert, you and Mark and author Piper find the Israel hand to be the puppetmaster. I do not concur.
James Angleton had his hand up many puppets, established this and that service, created illusions, played cards in an expert manner.
His play with Israel/Mossad is not dispositive of Israel/Mossad as sponsor of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, 35th president, who himself had dealings, sometimes contentious, with Israel; he was president, and they do that.
This line of thinking places Israel at the pinnacle of sponsorship on the basis of if/then as though its benefit was supreme hence its agency as sponsor primary.
Zirbel argued cui bono for Johnson. Others, for the likes of Marcello so beset by the younger brother, so double-crossed by the older one.
In Give Us This Day author of 42 works of fiction (called in by Allen Dulles in 1961 for a writing assignment through 1963) in 1973 boohooed that the Brigade and its intel fans were traumatized.
But Hunt goes no further than Johnson.
The case for Israel as sponsor still rests upon a priori dark matter, that illogical counterweight to the visible universe
The stepson of Larry Flynt can always be six degrees from Kevin Bacon in serving up LBJ and any suggestion to the contrary is notwithstanding
Preceding all the hitherto advanced and after all yet to be nominated the sponsor exists placing a word in the facilitator's shell-like ear
JFK is strung like a bead, perhaps near the center of the string as a focal point, but not in space devoid of connection
which is what any LBJ, Mob, Israel, single-use candidate requires
In sum, the sponsor will (through supreme intelligence and permeating influence) absorb and utilize the panoply of the disaffected
and with a deft touch, apply their animi without a moment's glimpse of the controlling hand in the empty mirror
When an argument cannot stand on its own... the defenders of said argument never cease to HELP US UNDERSTAND... over and over...
as if speaking louder helps the deaf hear better....
Albert and Mark make their case right here in this thread and then repeatedly attack others for examining their presentation with a fine tooth comb... as expected of "extraordinary claims"
Are there indications that Piper is onto something? Yes indeed. the players, the stage, the timing is all there... but the significance he places on this BG/JFK war does not in many of our minds, substantiate the conclusion.
Just as if I tried to hammer home the shot from the sewer drain - for which there should be serious consideration yet very little evidence.. other than players, stage and timing...
I can spend 20 pages of thread coming back at anyone who argues the conclusion stating the circumstantial evidence that leads to a person in the sewer shooting at JFK is strong enough to make my case.
I - personally - will not convince you... or at least I shouldn't...
YOU should want proof... black scuff marks on the concrete in the sewer... someone exiting the drain behind the fence at the NE end of the overpass... SOMETHING...
Something beyond the words of others confirming POSSIBILITIES...
and I agree with Charles... for Mark to state that nothing has been proven or authenticated in 49 years just SCREAMS David Von Pein... and is a sad state when one expects to have an intelligent discussion
about an important aspect or topic and we find we are talking to someone frozen at 2:30pm on 11/22...
THAT WEEKEND Salandria had already nailed it.. within a few weeks many others had published scathing critiques asking
the simpliest of questions....
So PLEASE DO NOT INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE by claiming the WCR is still considered correct and has not been proven wrong - with authenticated evidence... K?
Case in Point - the boys on the WC felt it just fine to state that the SS did their job... How does that sentence read if NO SHOTS were fired from the TSBD??
"(f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds
that the agents most immediately responsible for the President's
safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD."
Here are the men MOST RESPONSIBLE for JFK's safety - at least 4 seconds AFTER the initial shots are fired....
yes, they PROMPTLY stopped the car and allowed him to be killed WHILE WATCHING...
or how about the 455 items of evidence at FBI HQ all weekend... THAT really helps the chain of evidence in support of the WCR... right?
Cheers
DJ
to conclude - cause this really has gotten ridiculous... - If you can't let the evidence stand on its own... "me thinks you protest too much"
Albert Doyle Wrote: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.
Quote: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.
Remember, David refuses to answer whether Douglass' evidence of Kennedy putting pressure on all governments for nuclear detente is relevant.
You asked a question in there somewhere? Seems awfully rhetorical to me - again. JFK puts pressure on HIS ALLIES as the #1 Superpower on the planet, to strive for and work together for peace in the region.
... JFK is asking HIS ALLIES to respect the desire for PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Does he come down on France for having supplied all the necessary material to this point?
Does the work at Dimona stop? Does BG lie to JFK's face AND THE WORLD about the non-weapon status and future of the plant...? Does BG's lying put both Israel and her allies at risk...
BG does not want detente, he wants to wipe all arabs off the planet... eye for an eye. I REFUSE nothing Albert... you just aint gonna learn what you simply dont wanna know.
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
Can't follow simple instruction either Albert... YOU concentrate on proving YOUR case, I'll state mine myself - thanks.
"Honest interpretation" is only one that agrees with you - yes?
Now you have JFK threatening the future existence of Israel by asking BG not to produce weapons...
JFK did not DENY anything Albert... why do you keep saying that yet NEVER offer anything to support such drastic interpretations of the information?
We've posted the relevent passages and no one agreew with your "interpretation".
If JFK was sanctioning France for selling ANYTHING to Israel... okay you have a start.
If JFK blocked the sale of ANYTHING to Israel during this time - Hawks come to mind - okay, there is some evidence of this conclusion...
But you offer NOTHING of your own but to paraphrase me... pretty lame there Albert...
I realize you must be completely demoralized for not being able to articulate your position well enough to convince anyone...
but you dont even post the supporting evidence for others to make up their own minds... I POSTED IT... but not you. and everyone can read it for themselves....
DEFEND your position or STFU already Albert... whining about me is starting to sound like an obsession... and is eerie...
Whining about "interpretations" when you barely offer the evidence to evaluate is a joke...
Let's make this simple.... You ... have... not... made.... your ... case. Now stop blaming me and put forth an effort worthy of your own standards...
If that's already been done and you've not been convincing, maybe try a different subject you CAN defend.
...and accept defeat like a man. or you can of course continue whining about it... and falling incredibly short with each attempt...
Mark Stapleton Wrote:Nothing is going to be 'proved'. How much has been 'proven' in last 49 years?
This is, to my knowledge, the second time you have attempted to serve the core interest of the cover-up by claiming -- falsely -- that we know nothing about what happened to JFK and that all we really have are theories.
In other words, uncertainty is all we possess and all we can hope for.
Knowingly or not, you are providing yeoman service to the Sponsors of JFK's murder.
You've previously spouted that we don't have "authenticated" proof of what happened to JFK. Now you ask rhetorically "how much has been 'proven' in the last 49 years".
In doing so, you simply reveal your own ignorance and attempt to ascribe it to others.
Don't get your knickers in a knot Charles. I'll rephrase it to avoid confusion, as I see that David Josephs now assumes that I'm an advocate of the WC. Talk about twisting one's words out of all recognition.
To date not one person has been proven to have knowingly participated in JFK's murder. That's what I'm saying. So when some dismiss the Israel connection to Dealey Plaza by merely saying 'it's not proven', then I see that comment to be as irrelevant as saying the sun sets in the west or bacon comes from a pig.
I realise that we know much more now than we did about what happened to JFK. We also know that the WC has been comprehensively discredited.
Rather than providing yeoman service to the sponsors of JFK's murder, I am expressing my opinion as to who they were. This opinion is based on evidence.
Charles Drago Wrote: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.
It's a bit rich, unless you know who the sponsors were, to claim it's a 'knowingly false, cover-up-enhancing charge'.
You only need a bunch of like minded and well connected people who liked Israel a lot more than they liked Kennedy.
They don't all need to be Israelis. I can think of a few off the top of my head: Ben-Gurion, Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Ruby. Of course, there's many more.
Again you avoid a direct response. So what's new? I'm begging you, Mark: read carefully and for meaning.
Please share with us, in detail, your own JFK conspiracy model. When you do, please provide a thorough description of the pre-requisites for Sponsorship.
I don't have a JFK conspiracy model, Charles. I don't even know what it is, except for the familiar terms used here to describe its' components, like sponsor, facilitator and mechanic.
As you can see, I'm not well equipped to answer your question about the pre-requisites for sponsorship.
Please try to read my posts carefully and for meaning before you come back with what is all to typically a non-responsive reiteration of the original nonsense to which I reacted.
Please try to read my posts carefully and for meaning before you come back with what is all to typically a non-responsive reiteration of the original nonsense to which I reacted.
