Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[David Josephs]

I must be doing something right because Colby called me an anti-semite and Rago wants a piece of me. I don't want to become an EF vs DPF pawn because, frankly, I must admit I'm a lightweight in this field amongst many of the most researched. I just wanted to discuss the credible material in Piper that I think is being denied to the detriment of the full assassination knowledge that is the professed goal of many of those who are doing the denial. I disagree that evidence of facilitation has not been shown. In my opinion the best evidence for it is the irrational reaction and categorical avoidance shown by those who oppose it. Look at the banks gentlemen. The old story of power follows money holds true. - I won't disparage this forum because I believe its members are some of the best and most of the material is very valuable in the understanding of the Deep Politics that best define these things. I just disagree on Piper.

Well then Albert... when you find that CREDIBLE MATERIAL I for one will be here to read it and try to see your POV...
When you can state that material without WOULD HAVE's and COULD BE's and I THINK's and let the words defend themselves

We are ready - without a pro/anti Israel stance... to put Piper's pieces together to make a picture.... yet as I've posted repeatedly...
that request has not been met with much in the way of Piper's "credible material". Sorry but Sy Hersh does not count as credible.


So Albert,
Do you believe Lansky was in the same league as NE/CFR establishment?
Sat at the same tables and broke bread...

I ask since I believe there are levels of power that ALLOWED the mafia to do its thing, that ALLOWED and promoted the actions of the CIA and other clandestine military intelligence groups.

You believe that the "power" in America DID NOT HAVE their hands in and were in full control of these groups and was swift with vengence should anyone stray?

Lansky was, imo, a high level facilitator with limited planning and implementation power in THIER world yet much larger within HIS world....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UNJTPtmZhI

This man is a low-life lying murderer... and for all the support that is claimed between Meyer and Israel... at the end of the day... Israel would not take him.
For being so instrumental, supposedly, in assisting Mossad/CIA with the killing of JFK and securing the future of the Israeli A-Bomb... THIS is how he was rewarded?

Rabbi Burg reached his decision on Meyer Lansky in September, 1971. It was his
opinion, after careful examination of the evidence that Meyer Lansky was a
person with a criminal past and was likely to endanger the public welfare. His
application for Israeli citizenship was denied.

During the trial, Bach's arguments became more strained yet it reached a sympathetic ear in the legal panel. Bach argued that Lansky's repeated use of the U.S. Constitutional protection of the Fifth Amendment and his refusal to answer questions to the Kefauver Committee could be reasonably interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt.

"Shimon Agranat, the chief justice, broke in. Lansky, he pointed out, had been exercising the constitutional right of any American citizen.

Bach responded by agreeing that this argument was legally correct in a courtroom situation, when it came to deciding what evidence might properly be considered by a judge or jury. But the minister of the interior was not a judge. He was a bureaucrat trying to assess the criminality of a difficult and elusive man, and faced with such a challenge, argued the state attorney, the minister was entitled to take account of all the circumstances. Meyer Lansky had been given the chance by the Kefauver committee to clear his name in the public and official forum, and had declined the offer on the grounds that any answer he gave might tend to incriminate him. The Israeli minister of the Interior was entitled to draw the same conclusion from that as any reasonable man in the street." [SUP][SUP]33[/SUP][/SUP]

The writing was on the wall, the words hung in the air. The decision came later, September 11, 1972; Rabbi Yosef Burg's decision to deny Meyer Lansky the Right of Return was upheld. Burg was not a judge hearing evidence in a court of law. He was an administrator making a reasonable man decision about what he believed to be the truth. Bach looked at Lansky and felt vindicated. Evil in his view did not necessarily look evil. Bach had stared at the inconsequential bureaucratic face of the penultimate evil, Adolph Eichmann, eleven years earlier. To Bach, Lansky was, as Hannah Arendt described Eichmann, the banality of evil. Bach was victorious. He felt he had saved Israel.
Years later Gabriel Bach was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court

[Charles Drago]

Charles, you are clearly incapable of even conceding that you might perhaps be wrong about anything.

Wrong again.

Read this thread carefully -- hope springs eternal -- and you'll discover my "I could be wrong" acknowledgment.

"Short bus comrades?" I was hoping your earlier juvenile slur was just a flippant, emotional defense mechanism. It appears ou have no problem with using terms that are offensive to anyone who has ever had a loved one whom others would call "retard."

No problem whatsoever. All who are offended by what I write are free not to read what I write.

Besides, what's all the fuss about? With certain duly noted exceptions, it is highly unlikely that anyone on the short bus would be able to read.

So much for this episode of Drool in the Sun.

I don't really care what Albert Doyle thinks about any aspect of this case- he has been accused unfairly of being anmposter, and I will always speak up for someone in that situation.

Wrong again.

Two esteemed colleagues and I have accumulated scores of pages of persuasive evidence to support the hypothesis that at least two individuals are posting over the "Albert Doyle" signature. This material soon will be shared.

Until then, why don't you share with us the evidence to support your "accused unfairly" declaration?

You might begin by demonstrating your understanding of just what the charge is against "Albert Doyle." To my knowledge, no one has accused "Doyle" of being an impostor.

Or even an anmposter.

And Jim Fetzer's name is being unfairly dragged through the mud here, by inferences that he is posting under Doyle's name. I don't know why he doesn't defend himself, but he seems not be frequenting any forums nowadays, and I had to say that I think it's outrageous to make these kinds of wild accusations.

Wrong again. (Check the short bus's exhaust system for leaks.)

No one has accused Fetzer of being one of "Doyle's" ghostwriters. Greg Burnham and I have noted multiple stylistic and rhetorical similarities between the offerings of one of the "Doyle" poseurs and Fetzer's work.

Read this thread carefully. Take notes. Think before you type. (Seems to me I've heard this song before ... )

I apologize for thinking this was your forum. Regardless, anyone who reads these threads knows that Charles is in Charge here.

Wrong again. (Seems to me I've heard this song before ... )

And I might add that once more you're unfairly ascribing to others your own inadequate powers of observation and reasoning.

Other than the above-noted problems ... another invaluable post, Don!

[Phil Dragoo]

At his chemical bench, Holmes prepares a special concoction prior to another venture out into the night. Watson arms himself with his old service revolver. Holmes declares that he is not entirely unarmed, for he wears a long scarf with weights sewn into the ends, and demonstrates its effectiveness by reducing a flask to glass shards all over Mrs. Hudson's floors. (Watson, having served in India, recognizes this as a Thuggee device.)



Holmes brushes his chemical compound onto the wall that Sir Charles ordered re-plastered. The covered inscription flashes into visibility long enough to be recorded in the sleuth's notebook. Back at Baker Street, Watson and Holmes ponder the message:

Business[size=12]men they drink my win[size=12]e
[size=12]Strawmen dig my earth
None of them along the line
Show anything of mirth

As Holmes obs[size=12]erved to [size=12]Watson in [size=12]The Ad[size=12]vent[size=12]ure of the Three Garridebs, "Touch him where we will he is false."

Piper was introduced as the cat's pa[size=12]jamas
yet the cat remains sa[size=12]tisfied in fur

We may infer there is no there there
id est, the cir[size=12]cle is unbroken, an[size=12]d as such, reachs [size=12]no con[size=12]clusion, resol[size=12]ution, proposition
Lansky occupies the place in the Great Mandala equivalent to Walker:
Oswald shot at Walker, therefore s[size=12]hot Tippit, killed Kennedy

We are ordered by the arrogant Bugliosi t[size=12]o remain within the roundabout, take no exit seeking p[size=12]roofs
For Bugliosi[size=12], in the [size=12]manner of Pi[size=12]per, has set up a to[size=12]tem for worship[size=12], not analysis:

Bugliosi: if Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, Kennedy was not shot
Piper: if Isr[size=12]ael-Mossad-Ben-Gurion-Dimona[size=12]-Lansky-Ruby-Angleton-Echevarria[size=12] repeated as a theme does not account for all salient facts of that assassination
there was no assassination


Kabuki dancers
Harvey and Sheila
hold karaoke mikes


[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

[Mark Stapleton]

[B]Rabbi Burg reached his decision on Meyer Lansky in September, 1971. It was his
opinion, after careful examination of the evidence that Meyer Lansky was a
person with a criminal past and was likely to endanger the public welfare. [COLOR=#FF0000]His
application for Israeli citizenship was denied.

Your Lazarus-like reappearances are admirable David. At least someone on your side of the argument is concentrating on the issues.

Sadly, I think you've backed another loser here. The reason the Israeli Courts rejected Lansky's bid for Israeli citizenship is exactly as Rabbi Burg said. Israel didn't want to become known as a safe haven for gangsters.

By 1971 Lansky was well known. His partnership with Luciano dated back to the bootlegging days of the 1920's. He was compelled to appear at the Kefauver hearings. He was in trouble at home. Israel knew all these things. They didn't need the grief.

Having said that, they did allow some of his less high profile colleagues in.

[Mark Stapleton]

Until then, why don't you share with us the evidence to support your "accused unfairly" declaration?

You and Greg Burnham are making the accusations.

Don't try shifting the burden of proof onto someone else.

Sorry for interrupting, Don.

[Albert Doyle]

So Albert,
Do you believe Lansky was in the same league as NE/CFR establishment?
Sat at the same tables and broke bread...

David,

Sorry, have to bow out. Other pressing research issues have arisen.


Let me just say you are trying to mix credible eastern establishment Sponsor apples with facilitator oranges there.


Really, you have to crack open Piper and quote to do this right and I don't have time. However I think I've done a good job of showing that even the general information can chase opponents like it did with you and others. Lansky fit a key funding source and political orientation facilitator position that served the interests of the Sponsors. Your questions are damnable because it's obvious they are trying to get around this.


However, where we left off, and you never answered, is that the correct Israeli military funding dropped significantly in the 1964 funding year. Since this was decided under JFK in October 1963 that means it occurred one month before the assassination. Realize what your side is contending is that Angleton, even though Newman shows his Counter Intelligence office to be a controlling entity in the assassination, did not somehow influence Israel regarding this matter even though he was CIA liaison to Israel. Everything fits like a glove yet you return with "Quien es mas macho?" questions over irrelevant sponsors.

[Charles Drago]

Until then, why don't you share with us the evidence to support your "accused unfairly" declaration?

You and Greg Burnham are making the accusations.

Don't try shifting the burden of proof onto someone else.

Sorry for interrupting, Don.

My God ... This "Doyle" madness is spreading!

Now Mark is answering for Don!

And he's hallucinating!

Time to add another seat to the short bus.

FYI, Don made the claim that the Drago/Burnham hypothesis regarding "Doyle" is unfair. And so Don must provide evidence to support his "unfair" claim.

No shift. No shit.

[Charles Drago]

So Albert,
Do you believe Lansky was in the same league as NE/CFR establishment?
Sat at the same tables and broke bread...

David,

Sorry, have to bow out. Other pressing research issues have arisen.

How many of "you" are bowing out, "Albert"???

[David Josephs]

So Albert,
Do you believe Lansky was in the same league as NE/CFR establishment?
Sat at the same tables and broke bread...

David,

Sorry, have to bow out. Other pressing research issues have arisen.


Let me just say you are trying to mix credible eastern establishment Sponsor apples with facilitator oranges there.


Really, you have to crack open Piper and quote to do this right and I don't have time. However I think I've done a good job of showing that even the general information can chase opponents like it did with you and others. Lansky fit a key funding source and political orientation facilitator position that served the interests of the Sponsors. Your questions are damnable because it's obvious they are trying to get around this.


However, where we left off, and you never answered, is that the correct Israeli military funding dropped significantly in the 1964 funding year. Since this was decided under JFK in October 1963 that means it occurred one month before the assassination. Realize what your side is contending is that Angleton, even though Newman shows his Counter Intelligence office to be a controlling entity in the assassination, did not somehow influence Israel regarding this matter even though he was CIA liaison to Israel. Everything fits like a glove yet you return with "Quien es mas macho?" questions over irrelevant sponsors.

Yes indeed Albert... tail between legs and off you go when asked to actually OPEN and QUOTE from the book you seem to have under your pillow at night.

You jumped into this thread, guns blazing about Piper and his proof... and have come up short with each and every request to PROVE YOUR POINT....

You, like Specter and Bugliosi have decided the conclusions without regard for the ACTUAL evidence... only the evidence as it appears in your mind as it supports the conclusion...
The amount of "competing and contradictory evidence" is just as persuasive
... wheels on the bus go round and round....

If i understand your post.. you separate Meyer from CFR clan as we do Facilitator/Sponsor...

Lansky fit a key funding source and political orientation facilitator position that served the interests of the Sponsors

In our model... do facilitators get to make the rules? call the shots? initiate the activities?
Or would that be the SPONSOR MASTERS....

Neither Mossad/Lansky/CIA/BG were SPONSORS of the assassination... If the CFR clan directs the "machine" into an activity.... and Mossad is PART of that activity...
the next logical conclusion is NOT that Israel was behind the killing... unless the CFR clan desired it as a red herring to once again keep the focus on them...

Worked very well too as we have an entire book, and a few ardent followers, trying to claim that these WERE the sponsors and for reasons that stretch credibility beyond its breaking point.

Good luck on your other research... but THAT GLOVE DONT FIT SO YOU MUST ACQUIT... :-)

[Phil Dragoo]

Piper piqued by Echevarria's squeak

built a sand castle made of seven rings

Fans raved Babelian tongues-in-cheek

It melts in the tide as the fat lady sings