Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Greg Burnham]

My Albert, but you have become so much more astute in your ability to articulate as of late...never mind the aberrant content. I never noticed that you were skilled in applied linguistics
until now as your previous posts [read:all those outside of this thread] fall far short of this newly manifest quality.

[Charles Drago]

My Albert, but you have become so much more astute in your ability to articulate as of late...never mind the aberrant content. I never noticed that you were skilled in applied linguistics
until now as your previous posts [read:all those outside of this thread] fall far short of this newly manifest quality.

Forget it, Greg. "Albert" ignores our observations of "his" inconsistent literary abilities. "He" will not respond to our related queries.

Based on the evidence before us, it is virtually certain that more than one person is using the "Albert Doyle" identity on DPF.

As you know, the identical phenomenon was first noted in the case of the "Colby" entity's posts on EF.

"Albert," "you" and "your" work are now wholly discredited.

Step forward, "Albert," and identify yourself.

[Greg Burnham]

My Albert, but you have become so much more astute in your ability to articulate as of late...never mind the aberrant content. I never noticed that you were skilled in applied linguistics
until now as your previous posts [read:all those outside of this thread] fall far short of this newly manifest quality.

Forget it, Greg. "Albert" ignores our observations of "his" inconsistent literary abilities. "He" will not respond to our related queries.

Based on the evidence before us, it is virtually certain that more than one person is using the "Albert Doyle" identity on DPF.

As you know, the identical phenomenon was first noted in the case of the "Colby" entity's posts on EF.

"Albert," "you" and "your" work are now wholly discredited.

Step forward, "Albert," and identify yourself.

Charles, I couldn't help but notice your earlier observation that with each new post his prose is becoming more Fetzerian. As somewhat of a scholar on Fetzer and his work, I have to concur.

[David Josephs]

You do understand that NO ONE in the rgion had nukes yet...
Israel wanted nukes at any cost - even to potentially alienate their greatest supporter...

David, why do you keep restating material that has already been posted here as if it's news? Anyone following this thread already knows this. You do this all the time.

Albert has already carved you up and shows no sign of letting up. Cherry picking passages from Cohen to buttress your bizarre conclusions won't really help your case. Read the whole book, you can read it online I think.

I have grave fears for your credibility.

Well Mark... I've been posting for about 10 years now... I generally reiterate points as I find that not everyone who visits a thread will start at the beginning and read all the way thru...
By reinforcing the building blocks of an argument those that are just now tuning in can get the jist of my tone without having to read every post...

Your worrying about my credibility is very heart-warming... as I've asked Albert... YOU watch YOU and tell us what YOU think or conclude... I'll take care of my end.
When you ask me to look at a certain book... I do and pick what the website promotes as representative of the book... and you call it Cherry Picking?
And when I ask that you post more complete information from the same book... since you are so much more aware of its contents and supporting of its conclusions You don't.

Here http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/findings.htm we are offered some of the books key points... 8 main points and only one dealing with the SUGGESTION that BG resignes due to this pressure... (even though the pressure was not actually asserted until after BG leaves) If JKF and BG are such important aspect of Israel's Bomb... I simply ask that you post text where Cohen supports Piper, you and Albert... simple?
News & Findings

• In the period 1955-1957 a heated debate took place within the small scientific and policy community in Israel regarding the feasibility and desirability of the nuclear weapons option. When Shimon Peres put together the Dimona deal in 1957, and obtained massive French assistance, Ben Gurion gave the go-ahead to the project.
  
• The United States "discovered" the Dimona project in late 1960, almost three years after it had been launched. The late discovery of Dimona is one of the colossal blunders of American intelligence. (In comparative terms, this failure was more severe than the failure to identify the Indian test in 1998.) Israel and the Bomb revisits this intelligence failure.
  
• President Kennedy was the only American president who made serious efforts to curb the Israeli nuclear project. Based on a volume of newly declassified documents as well as interviews, Israel and the Bomb reconstructs the details of Kennedy's efforts. Cohen suggests that Ben Gurion's resignation in 1963 may have been triggered, in part, by Kennedy's pressure.
  
• The visiting American scientists never found direct evidence that Israel engaged in weapons-related activities. The book explains why. The book also reveals that the CIA, since the early-mid 1960s, understood and presumed that Israel was determined to develop nuclear weapons. By late 1966 the CIA circulated reports that Israel completed the development phase of its nuclear program, and was only weeks away from having a fully assembled bomb. Such information was never shared with the inspection teams that visited Dimona, nor was it accepted by the State Department.
  
• By late 1966 Israel completed the development phase of the nuclear project. Yet Prime Minister Eshkol forcefully disallowed a nuclear test, knowing that such an act would violate the unique set of tacit understandings he had with the United States.
  
• The June 1967 War had an important nuclear dimension. New and little-known Israeli and American sources suggest that Israel had improvised two nuclear devices and placed them under alert. Cohen suggests that some time prior to the Six-Day War Israel had achieved a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability, and during the tense days of the crisis in late May it placed that capability under "operational alert." By the eve of the war Israel had two deliverable explosive devices.
  
• The advent of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 set the stage for the most direct confrontation between the United States and Israel on the nuclear issue during the Johnson era.. Based on newly declassified documents and oral history Israel and the Bombreconstructs the details of the last American-Israeli confrontation on the nuclear issue. The two prime players in that confrontation were Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin and Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke.
  
• A new set of American-Israeli understandings on the nuclear issue came into being in 1970 through meetings between President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir. The United States no longer pressed Israel to sign the NPT; it also ended the visits at Dimona. In return, Israel is committed to maintaining a low profile nuclear posture: no testing, no declaration, no acknowledgment. With these "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" understandings nuclear opacity was born. Those understanding persist today.
  

and if you look at Alberts most recent post - I expect yout to offer the same admonishment over his repetition, ad nauseum, of what HE THINKS is accepted FACT and the position that Echevarria's statement (which he once again misquotes) has one and only one meaning. - The "we" in the last sentence was written with "(they)" in the original report.... they were not sure exactly what he said... nor was anyone sure of what he meant - except of course you and Albert.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...PageId=364

This reiterates what Echevarria said... as well as mentions how Mosley approaches E. in Sept 63 to discuss "some machine guns which Mosley could supply, in order that E's group of Cubans could invade Cuba" E's group turns out to be the "30th of November" and continues discussion of Mosley's bona fides as well as their groups desire to invade Cuba with HEAVY artillery.

to finish that argument yet again... this comment occurs on Nov 21st.... the NEW BACKERS are verbally identified followed by detailed deiscussion over the types of weapons - none having to do with JFK... yet all having to do with Cuba's invasion.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...PageId=369 A little later in the E/Mosley report we find that E and Mosley meet a rep of the Student Revolutionary Directorate (E's "superior" charged with checking Mosley out), an Agent Rogers tells us that lawyer Paulino Sierra may be involved with SRD and that there are allegations that Sierra's money is "hoodlum money but that Sierra has denied this and states that his backers are American businessmen."

So we've gone from a lower level anti-castro cuban tell ing us about Jewish money
To the next level up and that level's LAWYER telling us AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN... are the backers.... do you stop short since "American Businessmen" does not equate to the Mossad/CIA and BG?

I can't make that leap as I don't have enough info... but since you and Albert can jump to conclusions so easily... how about YOU explain it....

I wonder why Albert and Piper stop so short of completing the presentation of information from this all important report...
how these events continue to take place well after 11/22 and not a single word is reported about this groups POV on JFK's killing...

Mark,
Albert couldn't carve a turkey with a chainsaw... not with the poor excuses for arguments he puts forth... with the number of "would have's" and "could have's" he offers and the FACT that the following is one of the few CLEAR THINGS he posts:

Yet each time I ask him about it he refuses to even acknowledge this post stating the exact opposite of his position...

HE WROTE:
Just to make it clear I think Piper is wrong in his suggestion Ben-Gurion was the initiating sponsor of the assassination.

and

"We have 'new jew backers'...As soon as we get rid of Kennedy" - I think David is in denial of the dynamic that is clearly shown here. While David tries to mislead that those new backers were only interested in Cuba, Echevarria's statement is more than clear that the Cubans, as represented by Echevarria, were enlisted by those backers with the understanding that their weapons would come as soon as they got rid of Kennedy

and

I think a proper deep political analysis would show where those senses of "patriotism" merged. If anyone cares to notice, I think Piper did a good job of showing that. It was the manipulation of Ben-Gurion's nuclear needs and the firming of the Mediterranean underground/Swiss bank funding network that connected this new deep "patriotism" for the purpose of JFK's removal. The rest is irrelevant.

I think you can judge the credibility of people's input by observing their dedicated incuriosity. Like, for instance, their disinterest in seeking who those new backers were? Or who exactly told Echevarria about those backers? Or who told that person? The rest is irrelevant and is being used to coerce and intimidate, or brow-beat, persons with genuine interest off the topic in my opinion.

We are Not disinterested… we are simply waiting for Albert to produce the supporting evidence that it was who he and Piper say they were…

I've just produced evidence that suggest E's superiors are in bed with American Businessmen…

Maybe E, a lower level player didn't hear it right?
One would think that if Bloomfield was their backer it would be "Canadian businessmen", or "Jewish Bankers", or "American Jews" but that is not what is said….
That if it was "hoodlum money" AND JEWS he does not correct the "hoodlum money" reference…

Every time I go to look up your recommended sources I find more and more arguments AGAINST Piper's conclusions…

Sure be nice if you did half the work I have and posted the relevant passages in these books that supports your argument…

Instead of just trying to attack mine… I post documents and links..

You both - opinions, conjecture and ad hom...


I will repeat… the evidence stand on its own if authentic… offer some that readers can reply with, "Oh, THAT's what you are saying and why"… not a big sigh cause you spend three paragraphs attacking my position and not defending your own.

Thanks
DJ

[Phil Dragoo]

Upstream Posner having any role beyond "merely" coverup is scoffable

Posner had an interview with Yuri I. Nosenko--who can do that; who can grant that

Posner trumpeted death by natural cause in re Carlos Ghigliotti FLIR analyst on the verge of demonstrating 200 shots into the Waco Ghetto by the jackboots

Posner was part of the ridiculing of those investigating the death of Vincent Foster an event yet to be explained

Posner defended the late Ahmed Walid Karzai against charges the latter was a CIA tool and a drug lord

Posner isn't "merely" complicit

He is most sincerely complicit

[Mark Stapleton]

Complicity in the coverup doesn't equate to knowing participation in JFK's murder, Charles.

You couldn't seriously accuse someone like Posner of participating in his murder.

The murderers are the main game here. The elusive sponsors who are never named in your model.

Acquaint yourself with the term "accessory after the fact," then get back to me. Take all the time you need.

I can, and I do. See above.

Your definition of "murderers" is vague and wholly uninformed. Your interpretation of the Evica-Drago model is devoid of understanding and insight.

Charles, in post #254 you stated, "..complicity in the coverup--and thus, by definition, participation in the conspiracy to murder JFK.."

I just don't agree with your definition in this context. Many individuals have been complicit in the coverup over the last 49 years. Not all of them participated in the conspiracy to murder JFK in 1963. Your definition is too broad and over-reaching. When referring to someone like Ruby however, I think your definition holds true.

"Murderers" means those who authorised, planned and carried out the hit in Dealey Plaza. I'm mainly concerned with the sponsors, or those individuals who first came up with the idea and then made it happen. Isn't that the Holy Grail?

[Albert Doyle]

Charles, in post #254 you stated, "..complicity in the coverup--and thus, by definition, participation in the conspiracy to murder JFK.."

Mark, be careful. I have to agree with Charles here. Complicity, by whichever form, in the cover-up is tantamount to being the present day active conspirators. This is shown in the effectiveness of the present day media in covering-up the evidence. So much so as to be indistinguishable from the actual conspirators.

While I believe Piper has shown valid evidence that Israel had serious participation in JFK's assassination I have to defer to the Deep Political model as being the foremost qualifier of any and all assassination evidence. Charles is correct in this case so I don't want any association to your questioning of it. However, to be fair, I feel Charles is using strict, draconian application of the Deep Political model to phase out real and credible evidence of Israel's involvement as presented by Piper.

[Greg Burnham]

Complicity in the coverup doesn't equate to knowing participation in JFK's murder, Charles.

You couldn't seriously accuse someone like Posner of participating in his murder.

The murderers are the main game here. The elusive sponsors who are never named in your model.

Acquaint yourself with the term "accessory after the fact," then get back to me. Take all the time you need.

I can, and I do. See above.

Your definition of "murderers" is vague and wholly uninformed. Your interpretation of the Evica-Drago model is devoid of understanding and insight.

Charles, in post #254 you stated, "..complicity in the coverup--and thus, by definition, participation in the conspiracy to murder JFK.."

I just don't agree with your definition in this context. Many individuals have been complicit in the coverup over the last 49 years. Not all of them participated in the conspiracy to murder JFK in 1963. Your definition is too broad and over-reaching. When referring to someone like Ruby however, I think your definition holds true.

"Murderers" means those who authorised, planned and carried out the hit in Dealey Plaza. I'm mainly concerned with the sponsors, or those individuals who first came up with the idea and then made it happen. Isn't that the Holy Grail?

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]accessory before the fact - a person who procures or advises or commands the commission of a felony but who is not present at its perpetration[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

accessory n. a second-string player who helps in the commission of a crime by driving the getaway car, providing the weapons, assisting in the planning, providing an alibi, or hiding the principal offender after the crime. Usually the accessory is not immediately present during the crime, but must be aware that the crime is going to be committed or has been committed. Usually an accessory's punishment is less than that of the main perpetrator, but a tough jury or judge may find the accessory just as responsible.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]accessory after the fact - a person who gives assistance or comfort to someone known to be a felon or known to be sought in connection with the commission of a felony


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS Sec. 1961. Definitions As used in this chapter-- (1) ``racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2258 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-24 (relating to white slave traffic), © any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501© (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of that \1\ title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, or (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ So in original. Probably should be ``this''. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) ``State'' means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof; (3) ``person'' includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; (4) ``enterprise'' includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity; (5) ``pattern of racketeering activity'' requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity; (6) ``unlawful debt'' means a debt (A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate; (7) ``racketeering investigator'' means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter; (8) ``racketeering investigation'' means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this chapter or of any final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding arising under this chapter; (9) ``documentary material'' includes any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material; and (10) ``Attorney General'' includes the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney General of the United States, or any employee of the Department of Justice or any employee of any department or agency of the United States so designated by the Attorney General to carry out the powers conferred on the Attorney General by this chapter. Any department or agency so designated may use in investigations authorized by this chapter either the investigative provisions of this chapter or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[Charles Drago]

Charles, in post #254 you stated, "..complicity in the coverup--and thus, by definition, participation in the conspiracy to murder JFK.."

Mark, be careful. I have to agree with Charles here. Complicity, by whichever form, in the cover-up is tantamount to being the present day active conspirators. This is shown in the effectiveness of the present day media in covering-up the evidence. So much so as to be indistinguishable from the actual conspirators.

While I believe Piper has shown valid evidence that Israel had serious participation in JFK's assassination I have to defer to the Deep Political model as being the foremost qualifier of any and all assassination evidence. Charles is correct in this case so I don't want any association to your questioning of it. However, to be fair, I feel Charles is using strict, draconian application of the Deep Political model to phase out real and credible evidence of Israel's involvement as presented by Piper.

Who is this "guy"?

[Greg Burnham]

Who is this "guy"?

Fetzque.