Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

So here's my offer, "Albert"

This bring back memories of one of Javier Bardem's lines to Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men.

"It's the best deal you're gonna get".

Pardon the brief interruption. Carry on with the witch hunt.

[Greg Burnham]

So here's my offer, "Albert"

This bring back memories of one of Javier Bardem's lines to Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men.

"It's the best deal you're gonna get".

Pardon the brief interruption. Carry on with the witch hunt.

[Mark Stapleton]

:popcorn: Thats the one. A lot of violence but a great movie.

[Charles Drago]

Jim Phelps and Mike Rago are impressive researchers, imo. Best JFK thread I've seen.

Mark,

Just a brief entry to remind one and all of your initial, hearty endorsement of the work of two (or more) worthless minds that have added to the pollution at the EF swamp.

You'll recall that I quickly shared my informed opinions that Phelps and "Rago" are, at best, mentally deficient, emotionally disturbed trolls. At worst, I noted, they may be agents provocateur.

I informed you that "Rago" is the laughing stock of the legitimate JFK research community. To give credence to anything "he" might proffer is a self-indictment of immense proportions.

And Jim DiEugenio added that, "IMO, Rago's mission is to try and indoctrinate enough people with this nonsense to make us look like fools next year."

I cautioned you, as a friend, NOT to hitch your wagon to "Rago's" white dwarf. And now it appears that "Rago" -- an entity that posts under a number of names on many forums -- has been banned at EF.

Finally, I made a point of submitting the following (in bold) to you:


Here's "Rago" opening the kimono:

"Yes I do think that Oswald was a 'patsy' and an assassin. He probably thought that he was the only assassin. I think he was a willing participant. I do not think that he knew about the other assassins."

"Rago" is a self-admitted ignoramus ("he" celebrates the claim that "he" does not read literary analyses of the assassination). "His" techniques of flooding Internet forums with confrontational -- as opposed to informational -- material, hiding behind aliases, and attempting to establish credentials as a bona fide researcher and then putting forward outlandish theories so as to impugn the minds and motives of the larger research community are those of the agent provocateur.

Are you so desperate, Mark, to find support for your own hypotheses that you run to the arms of the likes of "Rago"?


Mark, you seem to be parroting "Rago's" ignorance defense when you "admit" that you "know little about the [Evica-Drago] conspiracy model," that you "don't have a JFK conspiracy model," and that you "don't even know what it is."

You continue, "As you can see, I'm not well equipped to answer your question about the pre-requisites for sponsorship. I'll have to repeat Conspiracy Model 101 won't I."

I resurrect all this, Mark, not to ridicule but only to address issues relating to poor judgment and lack of a common foundation on which to build research.

If you buy "Rago," then how can we trust your judgment on anything?

[Albert Doyle]

Regarding Echevarria, his link to DRE which, under Joannides' guidance, misdirected attention to Oswald the anti-Castro Communist will show, such comments present as disinformation creating yet another false sponsor.

Joannides was the CIA gatekeeper preventing Gaeton Fonzi, Ed Lopez, and Dan Hardaway from accessing truly pertinent information.

That Joannides hovers over this Echevarria misdirection is highly indicative it is of no value save further demonstrating the coverup.

Of course, we also have Jack Ruby revealing that he'd killed Oswald to show Jews had guts.

Piper's proposition of a "final judgment" is a seven-hundred-seventy-one-page bridge too far with a tasteless title.

His false sponsor is no more convincing than that of Zirbel-McClellan-Nelson and Larry Flynt's red-headed stepchild.

Nor the lukewarm creamed corn of the Waldron cauldron.

Which is why I've repeatedly said I'm not impressed by it either. In fact, until I had read the material on this site I might have bought Piper's Sponsor theory not knowing better.

Joannides might have known that offering the Echevarria bait might draw the very response that's happened here against those who pursue it. Israel is a very safe entity to expose because, as is shown here, there's absolutely no chance of ever getting traction in any evidence against it. Israel is an extension of CIA. That relationship had two points of origin. The first was the near identical birth date of both entities. The second was the Kennedy assassination. Both of which are probably the best disprovers of Sponsorship, if you get what I mean. Look at Joannides himself - he's just as traction-proof. Such universal impunity has very little worth as far as judging evidence, since all forms of evidence share the same level of impunity. The Liberty is the epitome of unspeakable Israel/CIA impunity.

There's no doubt the title Final Judgment is a deliberate veiled reference to "Final Solution". Though I beg to differ with you over its appropriateness, considering. There's no doubt Israel had a hand in the assassination Phil. Piper's evidence is a true reflection of the non-Sponsor role Israel did have. I would counter that Piper's critics' complete avoidance of the Lansky/Rosenbaum network is actually more indicative of what is being avoided. We're all talking the same thing here. Mark might do well by learning the Drago/Evica model.

Upon reflection it occurs another confidential informant to another intelligence agency reported Ruby in Tel Aviv masquerading as an NKVD officer--

--a false sponsor two-fer: Jew, Soviet

This doesn't really matter according to what was already shown.

By the time we get to Nagell the opposition didn't want the plot to succeed
That's if we take Nagell's account as describing a legitimate recruitment rather than another false-flag misdirection



LBJ-Jews-Mob-Soviets



Eyed buy THAT for a dollar

This doesn't exclude Israeli involvement or their incentives Phil. Isn't repeated rejection of the Sponsor claim (which I agree with) another way of admitting the strong facilitator role of Israel in the assassination? Phil, who else is pointing this out but Piper? Are you saying we should throw out the baby with the bath-water of Israel's facilitator role just because Piper overreached? Sure, let's publicly reject Piper's Sponsor claims just like Waldron and Nelson - but let's not throw-out Piper's strong evidence of facilitator in the process. So far, Piper's the only one I've seen bravely exposing it. I don't think you realize Echevarria's connection to DRE was exposed deliberately as part of a plausibly deniable false flag, as you say, whose purpose was to conceal Israel's true role and motive. David takes this bait and runs with it. People examining the evidence in a more sophisticated/honest manner see the true way it was intended. Let's apply some real Deep Politics here gentlemen.

There could be another reason for Joannides' attention to Echevarria. They could have been highly concerned that this evidence was too far out into public knowledge and needed some damage control from a strong inside source. Remember Phil, Joannides was seen at the time as a pro-conspiracy HSCA member. You are referring to him in a manner that was not applicable at the time he was doing what you say. More likely Joannides was deliberately steering Echevarria towards Cuba in order to steer him away from Israel. The fact David tries the same trick is what is indicative here. They did the same with Bobby too. They tried to paint him as being the hottest proactive anti-Castro planner.

[Greg Burnham]

Does "Albert Doyle" believe that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination and that LBJ was Zionism's best American friend and facilitator?

[David Josephs]

Does "Albert Doyle" believe that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination and that LBJ was Zionism's best American friend and facilitator?

Wait, I thought the Lansky/CIA/Permindex group was the mastermind and the best friend of Zionism in the USA??

In the Deep Politics Model... I simply cannot see how the POTUS can be a sponsor of ANYTHING - in this case.... th approval and direction of the actual sponsors would PLACE a facilitator in the position...
Other than Bush #1 who IMO was part of both crowds... the POTUS is a tool of this cabal... when the TOOL doesn't work, you throw it away and get a new one...

Allowing LBJ to create/conclude Civil rights legislation GUARANTEED social unrest at home while the CFR was dividing up the rest of the globe while shifting the drug sources from French to SE Asia...

my .02

DJ

[Albert Doyle]

It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments.

At the continued risk of being accused of participating in a witch hunt: This post is DIRECTLY out of the Fetzer book of idioms, syntax, and rhetoric.

Without question. Especially the charge quoted above -- which we've seen from Fetzer countless times in his defenses of the indefensible Phillip Nelson, Robert Morrow, and Ralph Cinque.

So here's my offer, "Albert" -- Admit that "you" have allowed at least one other person to post over "your" name and identify him/her/them (whether or not Jim Fetzer is among those for whom you are wearing a beard), and I'll do my best to convince my DPF partners to allow you to maintain posting privileges.

But if, "Albert," you insist upon continuing this blown operation, "you" will be held in contempt for being a deceitful, dishonorable man.

Have "you" no shame, "sir?"

This debate is clearly ruled by the evidence some are obviously avoiding.


Fetzer offers crazy illusions based on an egotistical need to be the conspiracy-exposer who breaks the case. I'm not sure that he either cracked under pressure or had some new high tech mind control done on him. Either way you can prove Fetzer is uncredible through abstract analysis of his Depository doorstep evidence. Myself I say proof of Piper's validity (albeit partial) is the fact some are desperate to force this contrived issue in front of obvious evidence they can't answer. The reason Fetzer is dangerous is because he uses high logical arguments to claim persecution over credible claims when in fact his claims are uncredible. As I said before, if there's a challenge of credibility here let it be by the facts. I say any objective viewing of the thread will show who has 'honor' behind their position and who doesn't. Let this be by the facts gentlemen. I see this as an issue of political correctness in regard to the evidence behind the assassination. I believe the Deep Political aspects have been thoroughly explained so therefore no suggested Deep Politics violation has occurred. On the other hand I think perhaps the pronounced resentment against assisting the cover-up might not win the same ruling since what I believe to be very valid evidence of Israel's facilitator role is being violently opposed by some members. Isn't draconian dismissal of that facilitator role a type of assistance in the cover-up?

May I dare say that true "democracy" is one where the vote can go against the government. Where threats of banishment for offering reasonable proof can be overturned. Where labelling someone as being like other dubious theorists isn't good enough against reasonably sound arguments. Arguments that that "government" has clearly not answered. Demonization is no answer to facts. Let those facts be the rule here and let those who directly address them be heard.

[Charles Drago]

Does "Albert Doyle" believe that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination and that LBJ was Zionism's best American friend and facilitator?

Wait, I thought the Lansky/CIA/Permindex group was the mastermind and the best friend of Zionism in the USA??

In the Deep Politics Model... I simply cannot see how the POTUS can be a sponsor of ANYTHING - in this case.... th approval and direction of the actual sponsors would PLACE a facilitator in the position...
Other than Bush #1 who IMO was part of both crowds... the POTUS is a tool of this cabal... when the TOOL doesn't work, you throw it away and get a new one...

Allowing LBJ to create/conclude Civil rights legislation GUARANTEED social unrest at home while the CFR was dividing up the rest of the globe while shifting the drug sources from French to SE Asia...

my .02

DJ

Well argued, David.

And a bargain at twice the price!

[Charles Drago]

It's pretty clear to me that this off-topic thread hijack is spurred by those who can't answer the main arguments.

At the continued risk of being accused of participating in a witch hunt: This post is DIRECTLY out of the Fetzer book of idioms, syntax, and rhetoric.

Without question. Especially the charge quoted above -- which we've seen from Fetzer countless times in his defenses of the indefensible Phillip Nelson, Robert Morrow, and Ralph Cinque.

So here's my offer, "Albert" -- Admit that "you" have allowed at least one other person to post over "your" name and identify him/her/them (whether or not Jim Fetzer is among those for whom you are wearing a beard), and I'll do my best to convince my DPF partners to allow you to maintain posting privileges.

But if, "Albert," you insist upon continuing this blown operation, "you" will be held in contempt for being a deceitful, dishonorable man.

Have "you" no shame, "sir?"

This debate is clearly ruled by the evidence some are obviously avoiding.


Fetzer offers crazy illusions based on an egotistical need to be the conspiracy-exposer who breaks the case. I'm not sure that he either cracked under pressure or had some new high tech mind control done on him. Either way you can prove Fetzer is uncredible through abstract analysis of his Depository doorstep evidence. Myself I say proof of Piper's validity (albeit partial) is the fact some are desperate to force this contrived issue in front of obvious evidence they can't answer. The reason Fetzer is dangerous is because he uses high logical arguments to claim persecution over credible claims when in fact his claims are uncredible. As I said before, if there's a challenge of credibility here let it be by the facts. I say any objective viewing of the thread will show who has 'honor' behind their position and who doesn't. Let this be by the facts gentlemen. I see this as an issue of political correctness in regard to the evidence behind the assassination. I believe the Deep Political aspects have been thoroughly explained so therefore no suggested Deep Politics violation has occurred. On the other hand I think perhaps the pronounced resentment against assisting the cover-up might not win the same ruling since what I believe to be very valid evidence of Israel's facilitator role is being violently opposed by some members. Isn't draconian dismissal of that facilitator role a type of assistance in the cover-up?

May I dare say that true "democracy" is one where the vote can go against the government. Where threats of banishment for offering reasonable proof can be overturned. Where labelling someone as being like other dubious theorists isn't good enough against reasonably sound arguments. Arguments that that "government" has clearly not answered. Demonization is no answer to facts. Let those facts be the rule here and let those who directly address them be heard.

Non-responsive.

Who are "you"?