Pat Speer

Tim, I followed you till the last part. If Piper subscribes to the outrageous and hateful views of neo-Nazis and the Klan, he should say so before we give his ideas careful consideration. An expert witness on creationism who just so happens to be a member of a fundamentalist church should say so before he testifies, yes? If Piper believes there is something innately dishonest or vile about Jews, then this might very well have colored his judgment. In that context, I agree that your questions are appropriate. I don't believe he should be asked to reject or refute specific statements from specific individuals, however. I think it's more fair for us to ask him if he has an active dislike for the state of Israel and/or the Jewish people. If he says no and you can find quotes from him showing this not to be true, then you have discredited him. So, Mr. Piper, do you have a dislike for the state of Israel and/or the Jewish people? If so, did this dislike precede your research into the Kennedy assassination (or even inspire it) or did it derive out of your research?

Tim, while I agree with you that there is probably nothing to Piper's claims, since I haven't read his book--too busy working on my own theory at the moment--I don't feel qualified to pounce on his theory. I do find your relentless attack on the man interesting. Why is it incumbent upon him to renounce every man he knows whose views you dislike? I sometimes go into enemy territory and write on alt.assassination.JFK, a forum dominated by lone-nutters. Whenever I make a point over there which one of them can't answer, the thread is flagged with a "Chad or Paul, Please Respond" comment at the top of the thread. Obviously, there's an agenda behind the forum, whereby every conspiracy challenge must be met, usually through b.s. and obfuscation. Even so, if I was asked on this forum by John Simkin to renounce John McAdams I would not. Nor would I renounce the views of James Fetzer or Jack White or Tim Gratz over there. There's something un-American about judging someone by their acquaintances. We learned that in the McCarthy era you claim to despise. (Not that this stops right-wingers from employing this tactic today--remember the e-mail campaign linking John Kerry to "Hanoi Jane" when they'd merely been to the same peace rally?) You haven't exactly renounced Richard Nixon, William F. Buckley, or George W. Bush, last I checked. I don't think it's realistic for you to ask Piper to renounce the views of every controversial person he's ever met or been friends with. What is this, an inquistion? And Piper has a point about the JDL. My sister's ex-boyfriend, the one whose father had spent time in the camps and had seen the horror of the holocaust firsthand, told me stories about his college days, and Irv Rubin. He told me that Rubin was a crackpot. Years later, Rubin got arrested here in L.A. As I remember he and his "defense league" were preparing to blow up a mosque. I don't remember if he was convicted. It's intriguing that almost all talk of terrorism revolves around Muslims, when the most active terrorists in the U.S. pre- 9/11 have been Armenians, Jews, and white survivalist militia-types. This incident involving the JDL was awhile back now, so it's possible they've renounced Rubin and his tactics and are more in line with the NAACP today. I suspect at this time its no more accurate to call them terrorists than it is to call David Duke a klansmen. Didn't Duke leave the klan back in the eighties? I could be wrong about that, but I seem to recall Duke backing down from a lot of his extreme views some time ago, and re-inventing himself as a good Bible Belt Republican much like yourself. I trust you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know, Tim. I suspect Piper has a point about Wolfowitz... any guy who spits on his comb to wet his hair is a bit of a yucchy, as far as I'm concerned... Not to mention that he is the architect of a seemingly pointless American exercise that is bankrupting our government and has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, an exercise that has pushed Iraq to the verge of civil war, a civil war that could result in the deaths of millions of people who never voted for Wolfowitz or the fools who blindly followed his ideas. What's your holy Bible say about that? Is that a good thing? Ask yourself honestly who is worse: a man who espouses crackpot ideas that ultimately do no harm, or a well-intentioned idealogue whose complete incapability to grasp the reality of other cultures results in the deaths of millions? Are we to be judged by our thoughts or our actions? If the lives of others are so meaningless to you then you have no business lecturing Piper or anyone else about anything. Are you "bored" with the deaths caused by the Bush Administration's reckless and incompetent strategies to "democratize" the mid-east? What will it take for you to admit Bush's mid-east policy has been a disaster?

Dawn, you mentioned that Cesar "admitted" having his gun out. If I am remembering correctly, the LAPD ( in 1968) said that no guns were drawn. Do you know if this was the case? Terry Terry, Cesar, a recently hired 26 year old, stood to the Senators right as the group passsed into the pantry. Cesar admitted to police that at the time of the assassination he was standing behind, and was in contact with Kennedy, and that when the shooting started he dropped down into a crouching position, and pulled out his gun. This , by his own admission, puts him in a much better position to have caused the upward angle of the wounds than Sirhan. The trajectories of these two bullets were nearly vertical, and the shot fired into Kennedy's brain was, at most, from a couple of inches behind him. A neat trick, considering Sirhan was firing at Kennedy from the front. Oh these magic bullets, is there nothing they cant do Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun. I don't remember Cesar admitting to pulling his gun. If he did, which gun was it? A lot of the focus fell on Cesar, as I remember, after he admitted that he had a gun like the one taken from Sirhan, but said he'd sold it before the shooting. When someone followed up on it, however, they found he'd sold it just AFTER the shooting. When they talked to the man who bought it from Cesar, he said the gun had been stolen. In recent years, I believe, one of the kids who stole the gun learned of its importance, and arranged for its return. It was tested but the tests were inconclusive. What I remember Cesar admitting to is that he had an active dislike of the Kennedys. I suppose I need to dig out my moldy Moldea, and re-read the interview. While some have tried to make something of Cesar's short employment at Lockheed Skunk Works, I've always considered that a non-issue. I grew up in an area (The San Fernando Valley) that was the home to thousands of Skunk Work employees, of all stripes (groan) and sizes. Two of these employees were my step-father (who helped build and paint the planes) and the father of one of my girlfriends (an engineer who helped develop stealth technology). P.S. I spend most of my time these days in Simi Valley, a community where Cesar was living at the time of his Moldea interview. Evidently, he lived here awhile. If anyone can figure out his former address, I might just go over and talk to his neighbors to see what kind of guy he really was. Does anyone here know Dan Moldea?

While creating my presentation, I found an article about Rydberg, which I found very interesting. Rydberg wrote a book and has also spoken at Lancer. He campaigned for years to see the actual autopsy photos, the photos denied him in 1964, but has proved unsuccessful, as I remember. I'm pretty sure that he believes Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Two other historical figures who support the CT view are H.B. McClain and James Tague. As mentioned in my presentation, Rydberg makes clear that he was not given the measurements of Kennedy's wounds and was only given verbal descriptions. Humes testified before Specter that the measurements were used to create the drawings. Humes lied. As Specter was the one who both asked Humes to make the drawings and entered them into evidence, one should wonder whether Specter knew Humes was lying, even whether Specter asked Humes to lie. As Specter was to campaign vigorously for access to the autopsy photos in the period leading up the FBI re-enactment, one should only suspect that Specter knew the drawings were inaccurate, and sought to correct this error before it was too late. Too late. If Specter had half the sack he claims to have (he named his memoirs "Passion for Truth") he would admit this mistake and tell us what REALLY happened. He had to have known the drawings were grossly inaccurate. For the measurements to be correct it would mean Kennedy's head was 50% larger than average. As the drawings were life-sized all Specter had to do was place a ruler on them and see that the neck wound was a heckuva lot closer to the mastoid process than 14 cm. Instead Specter now admits the drawings were rough and says he wishes he'd never admitted them into evidence.

Mr. Purvis, I am interested in reading that article, but for some reason I can see only one page of it.

Call me suspicious... but I'm wondering if the re-classification of many of these harmless documents isn't designed to disguise what they're REALLY re-classsifying. It could all be a smokescreen. I'm curious if any of the Guatemalan Operation have been re-classified. I'm wondering if some of the JFK documents haven't been withdrawn. Besides what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, what else are they trying to hide? Sickening. Freedom of speech except when you've got something to say that we don't want to hear. Right to privacy except when we want to listen to whatever you have to say. Right to a speedy trial except when we suspect you're a bad guy. Freedom of information except when there's something we don't want you to know.

Shanet, while you could be right, there are other plausible scenarios. Cheney could have been venting to Libby "that bastard Wilson is trying to make us look bad... screw him... he only got to go to Niger because his wife put in a good word for him..." To which Libby responded "his wife put in a good word? How does that work?" To which Cheney replied "She's an agent! She works for the CIA! She's the one who got him the gig!" To which Scooter responded "Well, I'll be... don't you think we should let our friends in the media know what a weak sister this guy is... that he has to rely on his WIFE to get him jobs?" To which Cheney responded "Good point. Get on that!" I think it's quite likely that in their zeal to make Wilson look weak, they overlooked the fact that Wilson's wife was an UNDERCOVER CIA agent, and that outing her would be breaking the law. Perhaps they did think about it and decided that it wasn't breaking the law if they merely said his wife without using her name. Which brings me to a question of my own... Has it been established how members of the media figured out her name? Were they merely told "his wife" and then did some homework? Or have any of them testified that they were specifically told her name? Last I checked they'd only fingered Rove and Libby for saying "his wife". Maybe this is the detail upon which the whole case will turn. But not for Scoot--he lied; Fitzgerald can prove it, he's going down.

Tim, please back off on the NO MOTIVE claims. They're an over-statement and you know it. The best you can say is NO CLEAR MOTIVE. It's fairly well-established that JFK insisted on inspections of the Dimona facility. I was looking through a comprehensive book entitled Israel's Spymasters (as I remember it), the other day. This book, written by a British expert on the mid-east, said that JFK was absolutely trying to prevent Israel from getting a nuclear capability. Do you dispute this? The book also said that the Israelis found ways to fake out the inspections that JFK ordered. If the latter is true, then perhaps there was no motive. If, on the other hand, JFK had found out about Israel's deception, and was going to do something about it, it may have been necessary (in the minds of the Israelis)to do something about it. If Mr. Piper has found any evidence that JFK knew about Israel's deceptions, he may have a workable thesis. Even if this is true, however, I see no reason why Israel should be raised above the mafia, the CIA, LBJ and oilmen on the list of possible suspects. If there's any evidence JFK was gonna crack down on Israel's nuclear dreams then Israel should be further down the list, just below your favorite suspect Cuba, IMO.

That's a fine statement coming from someone who supports the Bush/Cheney regime, which gave us the horrors of 9/11 and the obscenity in Iraq. You look out for your financial affairs and I'll look out for mine. I'd agree about the "obscenity in Iraq" but much as I dislike Bush and Cheney I can't recall them flying those planes into the Twin Towers (unless of course I have missed out on yet another bizarre conspiracy theory). The point worth remembering about the crapulent and corpulent Piper is that he is a known and celebrated holocaust denier - by definition a falsifier of the past. A sensible researcher would bear this in mind when analyzing any of his assertions. Andy, I haven't went back and re-read every post by Piper, but I seem to recall him stating numerous times that he was not a holocaust denier. By saying that he was bored with it, I took this as an acknowledgement that it at least had occurred. As far as Cheney/9/11 conspiracy theories, I read much of the 9/11 report, and as I remember it the Commission discovered that we gave the order to scramble jets and intercept the plane bound for the Pentagon, only the jets inexplicably scrambled out to sea in the opposite direction of the flight. If Cheney sat there and watched the whole thing happen, it was quite possibly because has helpless due to military incompetence. Pat, have you ever dropped acid? From what I've read attempts to use it as a "mind control" drug or truth serum utterly failed and my own "experimentation" leads me to believe that such an application isn't feasible. Nor have I heard about any credible reports that making someone in to a "Manchurian Candidate" is possible. My comment about LSD was not meant to be taken in the MK/ULTRA context, but in the "1968 drop acid until you live in an altered state of reality" context. I don't thiink there's any evidence that Sirhan was doing drugs to that extent, but those who've looked at his notebooks know that there is something going on there. The notebook represents something more than a laundry list of things to do... "1. Buy more laundry detergent. Coupon on the dresser. 2. Kill RFK."

Sirhan WAS a Christian, raised by a devout mother. I'm not sure that he considered himself a Christian in 1968, and I'm not sure he would consider himself a Christian today, but he was raised in the church. He celebrated Christmas, not Ramadan. The article you cited, by stating that Sirhan was a Muslim, ws either an article written by someone ignorant of the basic facts of Sirhan's life, or an article created with the deliberate intent of blaming Islam to RFK's killing. I suspect our friend Piper would say the latter. As far as what RFK's daughter said, come on. Of course, she wants to give her father's death some meaning. As an east coast politician, she knows how important the tie to Israel can be. She gets up in front of them, tells them what both she and her constituents want to believe, and you take it as some statement of fact. Read books by Robert Blair Kaiser, Godfrey Isaac, William Turner. Phil Melanson, and Dan Moldea before you leap to any conclusions about Sirhan's motivation. Sirhan may have killed Kennedy, or merely have been a party to his death--he's certainly no innocent babe--but the attempts to portray Sirhan as a dedicated terrorist are no more convincing than the attempts to portray Oswald as a dedicated communist. And quite possibly serve the same purpose.

Tim, nowhere in that article does it say Sirhan was a Muslim. A Palestinian Nationalist is not by definition a Muslim. As you know, Mel Ayton has a personal agenda of trying to prove that no one in the United States was killed by a conspiracy in the sixties. Not JFK. Not MLK. Not RFK. He bent so far backwards to make his claims that Sirhan hated Jews that he claimed Sirhan hated Lawrence of Arabia because it was directed by Sam Speigal. a Jew. Lawrence of Arabia was directed by David Lean. Sam Spiegel produced it, a fact I doubt Sirhan even knew. If Sirhan was such a zealot, then why didn't he take advantage of his public forum to make statements? While it's true he blurted out some ravings at his trial, and while it's true he mentioned the Israeli jet deal in his notebook, he also made references to getting paid in his notebook. Who paid him? Why has Sirhan kept his silence? Sirhan may have killed Kennedy but I suspect Rosicrucianism or hypnotism or good ole LSD had as much to do with it as Palestinian Nationalism.

You can't be serious, Andy. Certainly you must see the importance of someone like Irving telling the holocaust deniers that he was wrong. In my opinion someone like him has more credibility than Simon Wiesenthal. Because he was blind, but now can see, those who are still blind might trust him... In the U.S. George Wallace publicly apologized for his mistakes regarding civil rights and became somewhat of a hero. His being so wrong for so long made his change of heart an important event. I think Irving should be sentenced to community service: lecturing troubled teens in white power gangs about the clear evidence for the holocaust. Do you really think justice will be served by them putting him behind bars?

Come on, Tim, you can do better than quoting an article so full of stuff that it says Sirhan was a Muslim. Are you trying to hide the fact that he was and remains a Christian? And yes, Bobby publicly supported Israel. Find us one major party presidential candidate in the last forty years that did not and you might be onto something... Sirhan was and remains an enigma... He may have killed Kennedy for political reasons. On the other hand, he may have made some of his early statements to confuse everyone about his real motivation... At this point, he's not telling...

Tom, while you could very well be right about the difficulty of your scenario, you are undoubtedly wrong about the consensus of experts on how easy it was. You make it sound like EVERYONE who knows anything acknowledges how easy it was. I think it was this tone that angered Al so. Craig Roberts, who was a top sniper, makes the shots out to be quite difficult. As Chris stated, legendary sniper Carlos Hathcock believed them to be quite difficult as well. Was he misquoted? Along with Hathcock's quote, I think back on FBI-man William Sullivan's admission in his book on Hoover that he sat in the sniper's nest and felt fairly certain that he himself would be unable to make the shots, even though he was a pretty good shot. While you seem to think adding 2 seconds onto the scenario makes it much easier, I'm not so sure this is true. This would seem to give the shooter an extra second to aim on the last two shots. One whole second. Unfotunately, YOU don't believe these extra seconds were used for aiming. Instead, the time allotted for aiming the first shot in your scenario is the same as in the WC scenario; the second shot takes more than 5 seconds, and the third shot is EVEN more rushed than in the WC scenario. This shot came after the car started to speed up, and after Kennedy's body was set in motion, but, according to you, was taken with the absolute minimum of aiming time, and successful. Would you at least acknowledge then that this was more than just a lucky shot but was instead an incredibly lucky shot? I'm still trying to understand how a bullet heading right to left and striking Connally while he was laying down, with his head to the left of his torso, could deflect along his rib and exit several inches back towards the direction it came before deflecting sharply downwards towards his thigh. If the bullet had impacted at such an angle wouldn't it have driven rib fragments deeper into Connally's lung and perhaps even his heart? Remember that Connally's doctor felt that the bullet glanced along the outside of Connally's fifth rib. This means he felt that the bullet came from above and behind Connally. You're saying that the bullet came from below and behind and then reversed directions. Do you have any medical evidence to support this?

FWIW, Tom, I'm with Al when it comes to whether or not his belief in Marvin has anything to do with his ability to discern an easy shot from a difficult one. You are out of line to insist that his faith or lack of faith in Marvin destroys any credibility he has regarding weapons. I'm sure we could line up every expert you can find on weapons and find something about their life with which to discredit them; whether they believe in creationism or scientology, or even that the U.S. Government's greatest concern is in spreading liberty to all mankind, I'm sure we could find that they fell for some nonsense somewhere down the line. Can't you just disagree with Al without making it personal? I know he called you an idiot but I believe you attacked him first.

Although I agree with Al on the issue of the difficulty of the shooting, I agree with Tom on one point. The ideal position for a sniper would not have been the grassy knoll. I checked with a buddy--a captain in Special Forces--and he talked to his buddies with sniper training. To a man, they stated that the ideal position for a sniper is one where the target is moving directly away, and that a 100 yard to 200 yard shot on a man moving directly away was the superior shot to a much closer shot where the target was moving horizontally. When the target is moving directly away, it is easier to acquire the target and lead the target. It is also easier to re-acquire the target should the first shot not do the trick. They also said the superior shot is one from elevation, as it minimizes the possibility of interference from those around the target. The ideal shot, according to these SF officers with sniper training, would therefore have been a shot from the upper floors of the Dal-Tex, as the Dal-Tex was the building directly behind the motorcade. No, they didn't put this in writing. They were speaking to my friend purely on background. Anyhow, Tom, since you are an advocate that the superior shot was the one from behind, would you agree with these SF snipers that a shot from the Dal-Tex would be superior to a shot from the sniper's nest?

Owen, my ex-girlfriend didn't just talk the talk. For a considerable time while she was living in Israel, at least two years, she would regularly send me links to articles in the Israeli press. These articles invariably were about the insane blood-lust of Palestinians and Islamic fundamentalists and how the only way to stop them was to crush them and/or kill them first. Many of them called for U.S. military action against Iran. Obviously, not all Israelis feel this way. As far as Sharon, I'm well aware that he was officially "cleared" of complicity in the slaughter. But I remember when it occurred, and I remember reading the initial eyewitness accounts of the first western journalists in the camps. There were Israeli guard towers overlooking the whole camp. Hundreds of men and children were rounded up and slaughtered in the streets. And yet the Israelis did NOTHING. I also remember Sharon's rhetoric and refusal to take any responsibility for this lack of action. It was the consensus of most everyone I spoke to, who were almost all supporters of Israel, that Sharon had worked out a wink-wink relationship of the phalangists. I have no idea of this is true. My describing Sharon as a "pig" is an accurate description of how he was perceived by many Americans at that time. I merely used this incident to demonstrate to the ever-complaining Piper that we're not all brain-washed into loving Sharon and Israel. FWIW, I support Israel's continued existence. I just feel they should take the high road more often than they have. If you read about the U.N. you'll see that Israel has been one of the most reviled countries on Earth for some time and that only the United States' position on the security council has prevented their total ostracism. I feel that both Israel and the U.S. should be better neighbors, and more responsive to the legitimate concerns of other nations. Some may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... Yippee Skippee.

Oh come on, Michael. A number of us here are very open to your ideas about Mossad and/or Jewish Syndicate involvement in the Kennedy assassination. It's just that almost every one of your posts makes some reference to the lies of Israel and the manipulation of the media, blah blah blah. Talk about boring. FWIW I agree with you about Sharon. I remember when he was that pig that allowed the slaughter of all those civilians in Lebanon. But now, not unlike the career trajectory of Arafat, everyone around him has drifted right and he has become a moderate. Yes, I agree. That's pretty scary. An ex-girlfriend who lived in Israel for years returned two years ago and told me that we needed to nuke Iran asap before they got the bomb. Because as soon as they got the bomb they planned on using it even if it meant the U.S. and/or Israel would wipe them off the face of the Earth. Because they hated the Jews that much.. Because (in the minds of Israelis) Iranians go to sleep at night not praying for the protection of their families but praying for the death of Israel. This is how Israelis feel... that everyone is out to get them... Maybe you should become an Israeli; you already think like one. BTW Debra Conway is one of the nicest women I've ever met. If you can't get along with her then you probably need to be potty-trained. P.S. Do you have a chapter on the medical or ballistic ievidence? If so, I'm interested in reading it.

Thanks, Len. You started debating the man point by point and he folded up his tent. Which is what I thought would happen... He reminds me of the school friend mentioned in an earlier post. Rather than feeling compassion for an individual or group of people that have been kicked around, his attitude has become HOW DARE THEY EXPECT COMPASSION from ME? I'm the victim here! They say that 6 million died! Well, maybe there were only 3 million! The liars! (And then finally), I'm just bored with all this talk of how I should feel sorry for them. Screw them! When are they gonna feel sorry for me? People accuse me of being a bad man! I've been victimized by them! Horrors! Horrors! Did you see that? He gave me a dirty look! Maybe Mr. Piper is not a holocaust denier; he seems to accept at least part of the history. But he is certainly suffering from holocaust envy, which is why he identifies with his 1/8 or 1/16 Native American ancestry, and why he is for reparations of the black community. He wants the wrongs to be righted, for everyone but the Jews, because... because... they're hogging up all the attention! WHAAA!! My two cents of dimestore psychology available for free via the internet.

You keep making this same point, without even mentioning the name of the murdered "main opponent," suggesting that you know little about this matter. His name was Francisco Javier Arana. He and Arbenz had been among those who toppled the previous dictator to bring about the first democratic elections in Guatemala, won by their candidate Dr. Juan José Arévalo, a philosophy professor who had lived in exile in Argentina. When Arevalo's government stalled, both Arana and Arbenz emerged as candidates for the Presidency, the former representing the extreme right, the latter the more extreme left. Based on past track record, Arana had little chance of winning the election, a fact that made Arana's demise virtually irrelevant to Arbenz's ascension to the Presidency. While it is true that Arana was murdered, you've yet to offer a single source or citation claiming that Arbenz was responsible for his demise. I don't know if it's true but I found this in Wikipedia If this is true and if Arbenz was involved in Arana's death then it would be hard to argue this deligimitized his victory. If Arana led a coup attempt he brought about his own death. Tim you repeatedly complain that people through around accusations of various peoples involvement in the JFK without citing any evidence. Aren't you guilty of that in your accusation against Arbenz? You could try to argure that eliminating a political rival was an obvious motive but you have stated repeatedly that MM & O are no sufficiet to make an accusation. If you have any evidence of Arbenz's involvement in Arana's death let hear it. Len I double-checked the death of Arana in the best source on the Guatemalan operation, Bitter Fruit. Bitter Fruit says that Arana was causing trouble for Arevalo, and was killed while resisting arrest by men loyal to Arbenz. While one might take from this that Arbenz was behind the killing, the writers note that Arevalo was in control of the country and it was Arevalo who prevented the death from being investigated. So, at the very worst, Arbenz was a party to a political assassination. There is no evidence that Arbenz planned on doing anything more than arresting Arana, however. SO, Tim might be correct in that Arbenz may very well have arranged Arana's death. On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence for this. I think Tim's pre-dispositon against leftists has blinded him once again. Arbenz was democratically elected and he was NOT a communist. The cache of weapons he brought in from Europe, supposedly to export revolution, was not purchased (if indeed it was purchased) until AFTER we'd already planned his overthrow. The U.S. had no legitimate reason to orchestrate the overthrow. That said, Arbenz himself is not nearly as sympathetic figure as Allende. But that's really not the issue. The U.S. played footsie with Somoza, Trujillo, Duvalier, etc, for decades, and yet we overthrew Arbenz. The U.S. had a stated policy of supporting murderous right wing dictatorships in exchange for their help in overthrowing non-murderous left-wing socialists, for fear that the left-wingers might fall pray to the C word. It's truly hideous. It's probably not a coincidence that the Kennedy brothers were attempting to reverse this policy, and that both of them were murdered in front of their wives.

Tom, did you ever analyze the locations of what you believe are range-markers based upon the curvature of the road? Is it possible these yellow marks could have marked where Connally would be least likely to get wounded by a bullet passing through Kennedy?

Shanet eventually resurfaced but never had the same energy. I think it's been awhile since he's posted anything. Young Nic Martin is another who cut back her visits after crossing swords with Mr. Gratz. The irony for me is that I rarely have a problem with Tim. He's wrong more often than most. But I appreciate many of his statements in a devil's advocate kind of way. The main thing that bothered me about the Shanet incident was Tim's threats of taking legal action. To me threatening legal action is WAY DOWN the list when it comes to the right ways to handle a conflict. Lawyers have NO interest in truth or justice, from my perspective. Their interest is in the exercise of power, in getting their way. It's what they are paid to do and the reason why so many of them end up in politics. It's ironic, then, that so many lawyers end up as Judges, as their professions are at cross-purposes. I mean, breast augmentation specialists don't become trauma center operators, do they? When you read the memoirs of Earl Warren, the last few statements become clear. Warren, as a former prosecutor, and as a friend of the Kennedy family, could not step outside himself and serve as Oswald's defense attorney, which was HIS obligation. If he'd had specialized training, beyond his attending law school and learning to tell a strong case from a weak case, he would have better served the country. IMO.

O.K. Michael, you're losing me here. What's this have to do with the Kennedy assassination? You're bored with the murder of millions of people? As a dedicated film-goer, I've noticed that there've been more films made about the holocaust than about any other aspect of WW2,. But that's not boring. Does the fact that many of these film-makers happen to be Jewish annoy me? No, why should it? If the majority of silent film-makers had been Southerners, would it have been inappropriate for many of them to have made films about the Civil War and Reconstruction? Should Vietnamese and Cambodian film-makers avoid making films about the wars that destroyed their nations? Hell, no. A good film-maker makes films that are dear to his heart. People tell stories about their families and traditions. And Jewish Americans have been defined by the holocaust much as so many of the rest of us were defined by the Kennedy and King assassinations, Watergate, and the Vietnam War. Your comment that these stories are boring X2 wreaks of someone trying to impress someone. I for one am not impressed. Your BOREDOM with the tragedy of others is what's REALLY BORING. So far you've told us that some people with ties to the CIA had ties to Mossad as well. Well, maybe that's because the CIA worked hand in hand with Mossad. It was no accident that Angleton was CIA's Counter-intelligence Chief and the CIA's liaison with Mossad. Through the many Polish and Russian emigre's in Israel, Mossad had superior connections within Poland and Russia. It was Mossad who obtained Khruschev's speech in which he first denounced Stalin. Many of the CIA's best sources were first developed by Mossad. Maybe you should focus on the many connections between Jewish gangsters like Meyer Lansky and Mickey Cohen and gun-running to Israel. You may want to read Hank Greenspun's memoirs as well. It could be there is a connection. But bragging about being bored with millions of dead people will drive away many of those curious about your findings.

These last few exchanges demonstrate why Piper's book has been so controversial. People can write books all day long about the CIA killing Kennedy, but someone brings up the possibility of it being Mossad that killed Kennedy and everyone loses perspective. I agree with John that this is the proper thread to discuss Piper's book. This is the author's Forum. The other thread, it seems to me, was more a discussion of whether or not John and Andy should allow Piper on the Forum. If there's not much to Piper's book I suspect an honest discussion of his book will expose its weaknesses. If we attack the character of the man instead of the logic of his book we will lower ourselves. I suspect that Len will use the same analytical approach to Piper and his work that he used on Fetzer. I'd be disappointed if he did not. If it becomes obvious that the book is built around hunches, and is pure speculation based upon a presumption of Israel's ruthlessness, then we should ask Piper why he felt it necessary to write such abook without any real evidence. At that point, his personal beliefs will be entirely relevant. Let's not judge the song by its singer, nor the singer by his song. IMO