Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Greg Burnham]

Who is this "guy"?

Perhaps a better question is:

[Albert Doyle]

(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?

So you're saying Kennedy's letters, that are now classified, that Piper documents as having come right at the perfect juncture to back his contention, had nothing to do with it? David offers, right out in the open, that Israel had no fear of Kennedy's having successfully used the Cold War to remove nuclear missiles from Cuba, a nation of similar size and political location as Israel. That Israel wasn't afraid that Kennedy, having removed nukes from Turkey in order to appease the Soviets, wouldn't parlay that into prevention of Israeli nukes in an even greater act of detente. David, asks us to ignore all this obvious stuff and only dwell in his pedantic artificially-created counter scenario landscape. - All sincerely offered.

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.
  

Mark, you are pretty much seeing all David is going to offer. While having not read Piper he is going to continue to offer repeated over-general filler material designed to evade the operative evidence. He, once again, annoyingly offers something that backs Piper in his bold text, but, once again, draws the opposite conclusion from it while pretending honest speculation.

What's obvious here is that it is highly unlikely the US didn't know about it according to David's own citing of France's involvement. Knowing what we know about Angleton, David suggests that, although Angleton was documented as supplying Israel with nuclear materials, David suggests he, or those in CIA power in 1957, honestly didn't know about it. What David is doing is asking us to believe they had "bad intel" and is once again taking it on its face without question while posing himself as the grand scrutinizer on everything else. David's invariable response to all this is we have failed to provide proof. Pretty weak considering. But the sum total of David's input is zero in relation to the correct juncture Piper evidences in Kennedy's dealings with Ben-Gurion. David is in denial that Kennedy was trying to restrict Israeli nukes for the purpose of detente illustrated in The Unspeakable. Something he has yet to give a straight answer to besides "You make your case, I'll make mine." Most wise people will see what he can't answer.

and if you look at Alberts most recent post - I expect you 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.

Echevarria most certainly meant the weapons were contingent on Kennedy's being gotten rid of. It's very clear in the text and you haven't answered for it. Otherwise Echevarria wouldn't have mentioned it.

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."

In David's world, when zionist members of the Lansky/mob faction get energized by an Israeli directive they come out and tell people who they are. You know, mob people never call themselves "businessmen". Trust David! (Who has no details whatsoever himself of who those businessmen were, or why they suddenly got so very deeply involved in the conspiracy cabal, or why they were referred to as "jews")

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?

And we can ignore the "lower level anti-Castro" who told Wayne January that they really wanted Bobby dead and he would follow too.

David cites "LAWYERS" as being a higher level of credibility LOL! (CIA doesn't use "Businessmen" overseas as cover. World Trade Center "Businessmen" like Clay Shaw for instance...)

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…

Says David while showing no credible effort in public to explore who those people were. Having not read the book David doesn't realize that Piper does an effective job in showing that no 'jews' could show up so deep into the conspiracy and not be connected to the Israeli cabal. It was impossible to be that deep and not be connected. David is ignorant of the fact that CIA/Cubans/Israel were so interconnected in the cabal that you couldn't just back Cuba as he asserts. Especially when Echevarria makes clear it is dependent on Kennedy's removal. David is in denial of the meaning of that contingency. The Cubans are obviously being used and rewarded for their removal of Kennedy.

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

Which means nothing considering how interconnected the cabal was at the facilitator level. Mark accuses David of re-entering old material as if it was new and David, classically, responds by entering more material while never quite answering the operative points.

Maybe E, a lower level player didn't hear it right?

Desperate grasping. He heard it right and FBI buried it. What couldn't be heard right when Echevarria specifically says "new jew backers"???

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…

Having not read the book, David ignores the Lansky underground clearly spelled-out in Piper. They were all ardent zionists to a man and were all directly connected to the cabal.

[David Josephs]

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"?

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 refuses to own up to it.... nor does he bother dealing with all the evidence that points in opposite directions....

Yo Albert... who are the AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN being referred to here, why doesn't Piper ackowldege the REST of the Echevarria report and what does this have to do with Israel? (Maybe why Piper left it out?)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...&relPageId=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."

{crickets chirping}

[Mark Stapleton]

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"?

A person who is making some awesome contributions to this thread.

[Mark Stapleton]

Zionism is simply the patriotic manifestation of the needs of an Israeli state and people.... just like we have patriots here now and in 1963 who felt that killing JFK was their PATRIOTIC DUTY,
and in most every one of the "CIA influences other coutry's policies/politics" campaigns...

DJ

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.


Mark, Charles is correct in applying the Deep Political model. Like those who argue for the existence of god, the Sponsors must exist because the imprint of their presence is obvious in all forms of the assassination. However, in my mind this doesn't preclude Israel being the main and final facilitator whose cooperation was the final straw that allowed the Sponsors to decide to go for the coup because they then had enough backing to pull it off. Zionism was a huge powerful purpose and cause empowered by the will and need of a persecuted people fresh from an unholy holocaust that threatened their existence. The Sponsors knew if they could somehow manipulate its supporters into thinking their cause was directly tied to Kennedy's removal they would have all the support they needed. Somewhere in that Ben-Gurion sweating session a quorum was reached where Israel's chips were in. Piper is actually a Deep Political hero because he had the bravery to expose the evidence behind this against the huge tide of political resentment it attracts. His achilles heel is the fact his anti-zionist tendency may have caused him to not dig further and see the Deep Political framework into which it fell in its entirety.


The deeply curious will pursue who and what Echevarria was referring to. Those who serve the political agenda enlisted to hide Israel's role, whether facilitator or what else, will engage in airy discussion of side issues and philosophy unrelated to the actual cog wheels of Israel's involvement. "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. So right there David's phony assertion is undone by Echevarria's statement. David, with the full endorsement of many, says something that's quickly refuted by the semantic structure of Echevarria's statement. Sorry, but the contingency that Kennedy would be killed first as a condition is something that obviously refutes David's evasive contention. That condition is a hard-toothed 'cog' that can't be ignored or philosophized around so easily - as well as its intended purpose.

The only comment I have is that this is the best post I have read in this entire thread.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

Yes, what I was trying to say to Charles is that the people at the top of the pyramid should ultimately be the main focus, not the plethora of individuals who, over the last half century, have been complicit in the coverup. We already know the names of many of these anyway.

And to Charles I say, with respect, that you seem to use the model as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the highly plausible idea that a Zionist cabal was involved in the assassination at a very high level.

[Charles Drago]

Zionism is simply the patriotic manifestation of the needs of an Israeli state and people.... just like we have patriots here now and in 1963 who felt that killing JFK was their PATRIOTIC DUTY,
and in most every one of the "CIA influences other coutry's policies/politics" campaigns...

DJ

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.


Mark, Charles is correct in applying the Deep Political model. Like those who argue for the existence of god, the Sponsors must exist because the imprint of their presence is obvious in all forms of the assassination. However, in my mind this doesn't preclude Israel being the main and final facilitator whose cooperation was the final straw that allowed the Sponsors to decide to go for the coup because they then had enough backing to pull it off. Zionism was a huge powerful purpose and cause empowered by the will and need of a persecuted people fresh from an unholy holocaust that threatened their existence. The Sponsors knew if they could somehow manipulate its supporters into thinking their cause was directly tied to Kennedy's removal they would have all the support they needed. Somewhere in that Ben-Gurion sweating session a quorum was reached where Israel's chips were in. Piper is actually a Deep Political hero because he had the bravery to expose the evidence behind this against the huge tide of political resentment it attracts. His achilles heel is the fact his anti-zionist tendency may have caused him to not dig further and see the Deep Political framework into which it fell in its entirety.


The deeply curious will pursue who and what Echevarria was referring to. Those who serve the political agenda enlisted to hide Israel's role, whether facilitator or what else, will engage in airy discussion of side issues and philosophy unrelated to the actual cog wheels of Israel's involvement. "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. So right there David's phony assertion is undone by Echevarria's statement. David, with the full endorsement of many, says something that's quickly refuted by the semantic structure of Echevarria's statement. Sorry, but the contingency that Kennedy would be killed first as a condition is something that obviously refutes David's evasive contention. That condition is a hard-toothed 'cog' that can't be ignored or philosophized around so easily - as well as its intended purpose.

The only comment I have is that this is the best post I have read in this entire thread.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

The question remains: Who wrote it?

We're working to find out.

[Mark Stapleton]

The question remains: Who wrote it?

We're working to find out.

That sounds threatening.

[Greg Burnham]

That sounds threatening.

Why? If the DPF admins were attempting to find out if I wrote the posts attributed to me, I would not feel threatened. Why would you or Albert?
The truth will be known and the truth shall set you free.

[Charles Drago]

The question remains: Who wrote it?

We're working to find out.

That sounds threatening.

Only to a person -- or persons -- with something to hide.