Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
This source states they were both carrying 9mm automatics and one had a military style grenade and wired up explosives. I suppose Len will now accuse Pravda of anti-Semitism:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/13/17982.html
btw Len, the sources you cited aren't worth much. They're either in Spanish or strongly pro-Zionist.
Anyway, what the hell were they doing in there? Silence from the Western media doesn't exonerate the Israelis from suspicion. It simply underscores the strongly pro-Israel sympathies which exist within that media.
Why the lack of reports from the West?
Did they consider this incident to be not newsworthy? Why?
-
Fascinating stuff, Sid.
Thanks for posting that link to the article about the Israelis arrested with bombs INSIDE the Mexican Congress. I have never heard of this before and the fact that they were released because of Israel's influence within the Military Industrial Complex is disgusting.
Where was the fearless US media? Missing in action, as usual. Disgusting.
It makes one wonder how many other failed false flag operations we have not been told about.
As far as I'm concerned, your point is well made. The treatment meted out by authorities to suspected terrorists depends entirely on the ethnic background of the suspects. If the suspects happen to be people from 'our side' then it's all hush hush and frantic high level diplomatic negotiations take place to keep it that way. However, if the suspects are Muslim, then it's another story. The media and politicians combine to condemn the suspects with or without evidence. They are also detained indefinitely.
Bush, Blair, Howard and the mainstream media have been bitterly disappointed at the lack of a major terrorist attack in the last couple of years, imo.
Those damm terrorists have failed to keep their side of the bargain.
-
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
There is no morally acceptable course of action other than to disengage from this inane, destructive dialogue.
Good luck with the rubes.
Charles
Well said, Charles.
Good luck with the fun and games, Craig. As long as you stay well clear of the lone nut theory your antics are fine with me, and I won't have to sort you out again.
-
I'd be careful with those hands across the seas; you may just find what you're shaking is a brown-eyed mullet*.
I've had a few close encounters with that type of marine critter when I've been in the water.
I carried on undeterred.
-
Is this a great forum or what? I'm simply overwhelmed by the response to my predicament.
As you all know, fully half of my vocabulary consists of profanity. Therefore the new moratorium on swearing has hobbled me, and I'm in the midst of a painful period of adjustment. I'm so grateful to those who have selflessly given of themselves to suggest remedies and make accommodations for my special needs. It demonstrates how well we can function as a team, or by pairing off as some have suggested.
There are so many to thank... Where to begin?
Well gosh, first I'd like to thank Ron for his selfless offer, or I should say offers, given his adorable persistence. And Frank, a man so dear that he's willing to extend himself for someone he barely knows. And Terry! My soul sister Terry. Willing to fall on her sword for me, to sacrifice herself so that I may be spared. I'm genuinely touched. Both Terry and John D. said the nicest things. While that's not in the same category as Ron's and Frank's offers, it's still appreciated.
And of course John S. and Antti, without whom none of this would be possible. Not to mention my muse--Kathy. Thank you all. Yet there are still more: Sid, for remembering--not actually remembering me personally but close enough. Thomas, for the sincerity that is his trademark.
Thank you Greg for being the lone adult voice of reason and trying to put a stop to this absurdity. Thank you everyone else for ignoring Greg.
Gary, many thanks for deftly changing the subject and almost getting me off the hook. Charles, for reminding everyone of the subject and getting things right back on track. Mark, for the wisdom you showed in deleting your post. If only we could all be that wise...
Then there's William. Who took valuable time away from his activities on myspace.com to be here for me. What can I say about such generosity? That's time he'll never ever get back.
As a result of this outpouring, I am inundated with offers, many more offers than I can possibly entertain. Therefore I have decided to accept resumes from candidates so I can learn more about your special qualifications. Please include a cover letter with your resume explaining why you are the right person to talk dirty to, and/or to dispense spanking. I also require three references--not immediate family members (ewwww). Finalists will be contacted. For those who are not contacted, I'll keep your resumes (that's "CV" for you Europeans) on file for 12 months. Resumes, or CVs, should be submitted to likethiswouldeverreallyhappen@inyourdreams.com.
Thank you again.
This gives new meaning to the phrase "hands across the world."
Myra
Forget about electronics, Myra. Writing is your long suit.
Anyway, gotta go---I just remembered, it's been a while since I tidied up my resume.
-
My my my Mark, your panties are a bit twisted I see. Now how many forum rules have you broken in this one post alone? I'll leave that for the mods to sort out.
I don't have to agree will all aspects of with all aspects of every article I post Mark...do you. I do agree with the authors assesment of how the CT mind works. He nailed yours to a tee.
Please try again .
I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear.
I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there.
Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile.
Nice thread, Craig.
Oh My Mark, I've never embraced ANY theory when it comes to the murder of JFK, LN or otherwise because I simply don't really care who did it or why. I enjoy working on the photographic aspects of any number of subjects. So you see I'm not 'backing away" from anything.
I suggest you take a close look at the last sentence of your post to find your rule breaking. I need no help from the mods dealing with you, but if there are to be rules they need to apply to everyone...you included.
Nice try.
For someone who claims not to need moderator assisstance, you sure spend a lot of time denouncing others for breaking the rules.
I'm glad you've stated your position on the JFK assassination. You don't care who did it or why. Very patriotic. I've known very few Americans who feel this way. You have no opinion, except that you take exception when film alterationists express theirs. Correct? And despite the fact that you don't care who killed JFK, you have a strong distaste for those who suggest there was a conspiracy. Right?
There's probably a word to describe those who feel this way. Can't think of it at the moment.
-
full edit.
-
My my my Mark, your panties are a bit twisted I see. Now how many forum rules have you broken in this one post alone? I'll leave that for the mods to sort out.
I don't have to agree will all aspects of with all aspects of every article I post Mark...do you. I do agree with the authors assesment of how the CT mind works. He nailed yours to a tee.
Please try again .
I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear.
I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there.
Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile.
Nice thread, Craig.
-
IMO, Craig's shilling for dubious causes would be more effective if his avatar wasn't so peculiar.
Sorry, Craig. I don't mean to be rude. But no human has a braincage as large as that.
Looks can be deceiving, Sid.
-
Why thank you Mark for your insightful comments. However if you plan on quoting me please do so correctly. IIRC my statement was that I post and read here for ENTERTAINMENT! Is entertainment not a valid reason to be here? Your attempt at an ad hom was pretty poor.
However the replies to this thread have been entertaining to say the least. Its was wonderful to see the author of the article in the OP to be so correct. I do have to give Stephen credit where credit is due. He at least attempted to refute the author with a counter argument before resorting to an ad hom. The rest of you.....
As for the Posner and the SBT theory, I've no attachment to either, which I also told you when you asked. Now how did Evan's friend straighten me out?
Thanks for playing Mark.
There's such a stark difference between the words 'entertainment' and 'amusement' isn't there? What a terrible injustice to you.
I think when William of Ockham devised his theory back in the 14th century, he might have been primarily concerned with the explanation of natural phenomena. When confronted with the reality that in Dallas in 1963, many persons would conspire to conceal the truth with multiple layers of manufactured fallacies, and jealously guard these with intimidation and violence, he might have felt that this particular 'phenomenon' was the exception. On the other hand, he probably would have carefully studied the facts surrounding the case and remarked, "Yes, obviously this was a conspiracy". After all, he would merely have to apply his own theory to come up with this conclusion.
And while you say you've no attachment to either the SBT or Posner, I'm afraid the link you posted (and heartily endorsed) does indeed have such an attachment. Didn't you read it? It states that those who can't accept that Oswald killed JFK are 'losers' and are themselves Lee Harvey Oswald, among other things.
You're way out there with the lunatic fringe, Craig, whether you realise it or not. Little green men, witchcraft, the LNT, alchemy, they're all pretty wacky. I'm a little surprised to see you out there.
-
That's an interesting post, Craig. I'll read through the whole of it later (I dislike long posts) but a friend recently did a talk on Conspiracy Theories, and came up with 10 tests to apply. I think it is relevant to this thread so I'll post it here:Tests to apply to conspiracy arguments
When a person presents a conspiracy theory, the theory is made as a series of arguments which are intended to support the theory. But the theory is only as reliable as the arguments used to support it. If the arguments don’t work, then neither does the conspiracy theory.
Accordingly, if someone presents you with a conspiracy theory based on a number of arguments, don’t accept it blindly. Instead, look carefully at the arguments to see if they work. How can you tell whether they work? Well, here are ten tests which you can apply to the arguments. If most or all of the arguments fail, then the conspiracy theory is probably wrong. If most or all of the arguments work, then the conspiracy theory is probably right.
Test 1: Is the argument factually correct?
It’s remarkable how many conspiracy theories are based on arguments which are simply factually incorrect. If you’re presented with a conspiracy theory argument, check the facts. Many incorrect arguments are repeated in ignorance. But there are also some people who knowingly repeat conspiracy arguments they know are wrong.
Test 2: Is the argument relevant to the theory?
A second problem with conspiracy theories is that people cloud the issue by attaching true, but irrelevant, arguments. Just because an argument is true doesn’t mean it’s relevant to the theory you’re testing. This is a form of guilt by association, and suggests the theory is being padded.
Test 3: If the argument is true, what implications does it have in other areas?
An argument on its own may appear to be plausible. But if we apply the argument to related fields or subjects, does it continue to make sense? Or would it require the world to be very different from how we see it?
Test 4: Is the argument consistent with other arguments used to support the theory?
There’s a temptation to judge a theory simply by the number of supporting arguments. But amongst all these arguments, there’s the danger that some of them contradict each other. This immediately means that at least one of the arguments is wrong, but in the context of conspiracy theories, it’s perhaps worthwhile doubting both.
Test 5: What do relevant experts say about a particular argument?
Conspiracy theorists often tout their apparent expertise with a body of knowledge in order to bolster their arguments. But, perversely, they also often dismiss other experts in the field. This is often because the expert consensus in that field is contrary to the argument presented. Similarly, they sometimes quote experts speaking inaccurately outside their field of expertise.
Test 6: Is it an argument or an opinion?
An argument which merely expresses an opinion, but which doesn’t have any supporting evidence, adds nothing to the theory, and should be ignored. Conspiracy theorists are certainly entitled to their opinions, but they’re not arguments.
Test 7: Does the argument offer any supporting evidence?
Some arguments are presented with words such as “could have” or “maybe”. Without any supporting evidence, these aren’t arguments – they’re speculation. They too should be ignored.
Test 8: Is the explanation provided by an argument the only possible explanation for the evidence?
There are cases when an argument presents two alternative explanations for an event. One is the conspiracy explanation, while the other is said to be the official explanation. When the official explanation is debunked, the conspiracy explanation appears to be correct by default. But sometimes the official explanation is something different, or misrepresented.
Test 9: How does the argument deal with positive arguments which contradict it?
Theories aren’t built out of opposition to other theories. Instead, they’re created to better explain the evidence than previous theories. Therefore, a conspiracy theory has to address evidence which contradicts it. Ignoring the evidence should be treated as a major weakness of the theory.
Test 10: Would an experiment of your own help shed light on an argument?
Some conspiracy arguments rely on you accepting them without question, perhaps by an appeal to common sense. Sadly, common sense can lead us astray. This is where simple experiments, or even just careful observation of the world around us, can help test the accuracy of an argument.
Conclusion: Is the conspiracy theory a coherent theory?
A problem with many conspiracy theories is that they exist only as a challenge to the official version of events. Yet if the conspiracy theory is true, a series of events must have occurred to make the conspiracy happen. However, many conspiracy theorists are unwilling to spell out exactly how they think the conspiracy was achieved. This appears to be a tacit acceptance that their arguments don’t add up to a coherent theory. What they often have, instead, is an ad hoc collection of arguments which, if put together, make no sense.
Evan,
It would have been fun sitting through your friend's talk on conspiracy theories. Droning speeches always provide a soothing background for a peaceful nap.
Of course, when it comes to the JFK assassination, the 1964 Warren Report is technically a conspiracy theory (a conspiracy of one, that is). Why? Because the HSCA declared in 1979 that the assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy by persons unknown.
This finding supersedes the Warren Report.
So, now that the Warren Report has been effectively disowned by the US Congress, the only people who cling to it are those like Posner and those in the mainstream media who are too frightened to look into the matter for fear of losing their jobs. And the owners of the media, of course.
Anyway, how does the Warren Report (ie. the lone nut theory) stack up when your friend's ten tests are applied to it?
Real bad, Evan. Very poor. Hopeless. Zero out of ten. I won't go through them all. I don't like long posts either.
As your friend says, the theory is only as reliable as the arguments used to support it. If the arguments don't work, then neither does the conspiracy theory. Consequently, the Warren Report's conspiracy theory of one ranks right alongside the theory that Jackie Kennedy killed JFK, although proponents of the latter may feel justifiably insulted.
Conclusion? Er, well, the lone nut theory is not a coherent theory. It fails by light years.
I'm glad your friend has been able to straighten Craig Lamson out.
p.s. Craig only does this for amusement, you know. He's on the record as saying this. I should know because I asked him myself.
-
It seems that William S. Paley's CBS network was very active in maintaining the myth of the Warren Commission in the early years. I am currently reading Mark Lane's 'A Citizen's Dissent' and this book discloses, among other things, the very pro-active role played by CBS in those early years. From pp 75-76:
CBS presented "The Warren Report" (it's four part doco) on four consecutive evenings beginning Sunday, June 25, 1967. In a press release dated June 13, the network referred to its broadcastst as 'unprecedented'. Very likely the programs were dissimilar in length and expense from any that had gone before but the conclusion offered was not unlike that submitted by CBS more than two and a half years earlier. On Sunday evening, September 27, 1964, the very day the Warren Commission was issued, CBS presented its first Warren Report documentary. The program was comprised of carefully edited interviews designed to provide support for the Commissions conclusions.
Emile de Antonio and I had agreed to make a film documentary to fill in many of the gaps created by the publicly available material. His previous film, 'Point of Order', which dealt with the Army-McCarthy hearings, had been constructed entirely out of film from the CBS kinescope archives, and the agreement that permitted the production made de Antonio and CBS partners in the venture. In the spring of 1966, soon after he and I had returned from interviewing witnesses in Dallas for the film 'Rush to Judgement', de Antonio spoke with the CBS film librarian who offered to make out takes from the September 1964 CBS program available to us. Of course, we were quite pleased that material previously unavailable might now be examined. The librarian explained that since the employees at CBS were unavailable for screening the footage for us during office hours, the viewing sessions would have to be held during the evening hours. We agreed, and an appointment was made for the late afternoon, with the understanding that the session would last for several hours.
De Antonio had been in the film business for some time and I had been in New York politics for a while. I think, however, that life had not adequately prepared us for that moment. The out-takes--the portion of the filmed interviews which were not shown to the public--revealed the technique that CBS had employed in making its first documentary.......
The next morning de Antonio called the CBS library to to arrange for another appointment to view additional footage. The first evening we had examined approximately five hours of what appeared to be some seventy hours of film. The librarian told de Antonio that a terrible mistake had been made. CBS would not sell any of the footage to us, in fact, CBS was soon going to destroy the film.....It's decision was final and nothere was no appeal from it.
Nevertheless, de Antonio wrote to the appropriate CBS executive, explaining that the obliteration of that film, some of it unique, would be the destruction of the raw material of history.....CBS was in the truth-gathering business, and surely no news medium could eradicate the facts, could make them unavailable. The executive replied that he was sorry but CBS could not make the film available.
What had de Antonio and I glimpsed that evening that evidently caused the network to reverse its policy within 24 hours? .....The documentary was apparently constructed by experts in the entertainment business as if it were a fiction program. By way of contrast, in Sweden, when a film documentary was produced on the same subject, it was directed by a leading historian and professor of historical methods at the University of Stockholm.
CBS evidently began with a script......The script was that Oswald was the lone assassin. Many hours of interviews were filmed, some with important witnesses. When a witness said something which challenged the script, that portion of the interview was snipped away and thus turned into an out-take. If a witness said, for example, that he heard the shots and at the time believed they had come from the knoll, the interview might be halted and then begun again. What was said during the respite has not been recorded and remains as much an enigma as the Commission's all too frequent 'off the record' discussions. When the filming resumed, the witness might say that, while at the time he thought the shots may have originated from the knoll area, he now believed that the evidence showed that the shots came from the Book Depository. When asked to repeat his conclusion as to where the shots originated, he might say, 'well, from the Book Depository'. CBS would then present just that last fragment of the interviewee's answer.
Time prevents me from presenting more from Lane's book at the moment, but there's plenty more.
It's a pity Bill Paley isn't alive today, because he got plenty of 'splaining to do.
-
I denied all spider bot access about 4 weeks ago when we were having some issues with bandwidth. This is why search engine searches will bring up older forum threads but not very recent ones.
I have given them access again today and the bots should be visible in the active user list at the bottom of the page when they visit - soon a google search for "sid walker" should bring up a list of threads from the forum of intense wisdom and insight
How's England's World Cup tilt progressing?
Those old Aussie pensioners haven't lost a game in.....uh.....how many years?
Ah..... the short term memory loss of the elderly Ocker!!!
Of course, I was referring to the World Cup matches--the one's where Australia TRIES to win--not those Mickey Mouse sideshows.
Here's a recent article from Chappelli. 24 WC games without loss for Australia. The last time Australia lost a WC game was in the last millenium (1000-2000 AD):
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/talk/conte...dia/289673.html
-
I denied all spider bot access about 4 weeks ago when we were having some issues with bandwidth. This is why search engine searches will bring up older forum threads but not very recent ones.
I have given them access again today and the bots should be visible in the active user list at the bottom of the page when they visit - soon a google search for "sid walker" should bring up a list of threads from the forum of intense wisdom and insight
How's England's World Cup tilt progressing?
Those old Aussie pensioners haven't lost a game in.....uh.....how many years?
-
Finally, the other strange thing about Mifgash is why was there such haste on the part of all parties to get this 'dialogue' up and running? Rusk and the Americans already knew that JFK was going to give the thumbs down to Israel's request for surface-to-surface missiles. The upgrade of Israel's old Sherman tank fleet hardly required a 'security dialogue', imo. The US Military rarely needs its arm twisted to sell conventional weaponry to willing customers. Why did the US Secretary of State agree so quickly when he knew this dialogue was going to be a waste of time? JFK had already turned down Ben-Gurion's repeated requests for a formal defence pact between the two nations because he didn't want to damage relations with Arab nations in the region. His position on Dimona was plain. Why the sudden urgency from the US and Israeli military for a dialogue which had limited prospects of breaking new ground?
What the hell was Mifgash all about? We haven't been told but I suspect the worst.
Mark... forgive me if I missed something, but where have you explained the name of this thread's title?
Good question, Sid.
The meaning of Mifgash I don't know. It comes from Cohen's book page 172, paragragh 2:
Israel had a broader agenda for the November secret meeting (code named Mifgash) than the US was willing to discuss......
Cohen goes on to outline how Israel was seeking to enhance its deterrent capability, but I believe the meeting facilitated an even broader agenda, which ultimately did indeed allow Israel to enhance its deterrent capability, with the full support of the US Joint Chiefs, if you get my drift.
Is there a Hebrew translation for Mifgash?
Mark, what a diabolically clever code-name for a secret meeting. It means "encounter" and is used by nearly every Jewish group to describe special events, meetings etc.
Thanks Greg. If it's that common, why haven't I heard of it? Probably because I'm not Jewish, I guess.
What do you think of the suggestion that Mifgash was relevant to the assassination? I'm keen to hear counter arguments, especially from creditable researchers. I don't claim to know with any certainty, it's just my strong suspicion.
It should be remembered that Cohen was arrested and briefly detained by Israeli authorities while undertaking a speaking tour of Israel in 2000. They were keen to find out how he had gained access to such sensitive information.
'Israel and the Bomb' is probably the most meticulously researched book I have ever read, given the secrecy surrounding the subject matter. As you know, Cohen was shocked when Piper cited several portions of the book when making a case for Israeli complicity in JFK's assassination. Cohen didn't realise what light his work shed on a dark and mysterious corner of modern history.
The result of a research and writing grant in 1989, Cohen's book contains some 100 interviews (some of the interviewees asked not to be named) and sources a wide variety of archives, Government documents, personal collections, English and foreign language newspapers, unpublished materials, minutes of Cabinet meetings, journal articles, essays and books. It also boasts an extensive glossary of individuals, and English and foreign language acronyms.
In a nutshell, if you want the skinny on Israel's nuclear weapons program from 1956 to 1998, and how they managed to pull it off, this is your reference.
My favorite from the glossary of individuals is this one:
Teddy Kollek (1911- ) Hungarian born. Hagannah operative in the United States (1947-1952); Director-General of the Prime Minister's Office under David Ben-Gurion (1954-1963); mayor of Jerusalem (1965-1996).
-
Sid,
Good posts.
Thanks for posting JFK's speech to the UN in '61. Proof positive he was decades ahead of his time. btw, Hammarskjold had serious problems with Israel dating back to the Suez in '56--just another one of those coincidental deaths, I guess.
FWIW, I can't see the attack on Iran proceeding. Domestic support for Olmert, Blair and Bush is too low for them to explain it away and the west is well and truly war weary, imo. The US/Israel axis will have to accept the fact that Iran is as entitled to a nuclear deterrent as they are.
We might be witnessing a realignment in the balance of power.
Then again, there's always the chance of a false flag operation. (surprise, surprise)
-
Finally, the other strange thing about Mifgash is why was there such haste on the part of all parties to get this 'dialogue' up and running? Rusk and the Americans already knew that JFK was going to give the thumbs down to Israel's request for surface-to-surface missiles. The upgrade of Israel's old Sherman tank fleet hardly required a 'security dialogue', imo. The US Military rarely needs its arm twisted to sell conventional weaponry to willing customers. Why did the US Secretary of State agree so quickly when he knew this dialogue was going to be a waste of time? JFK had already turned down Ben-Gurion's repeated requests for a formal defence pact between the two nations because he didn't want to damage relations with Arab nations in the region. His position on Dimona was plain. Why the sudden urgency from the US and Israeli military for a dialogue which had limited prospects of breaking new ground?
What the hell was Mifgash all about? We haven't been told but I suspect the worst.
Mark... forgive me if I missed something, but where have you explained the name of this thread's title?
Good question, Sid.
The meaning of Mifgash I don't know. It comes from Cohen's book page 172, paragragh 2:
Israel had a broader agenda for the November secret meeting (code named Mifgash) than the US was willing to discuss......
Cohen goes on to outline how Israel was seeking to enhance its deterrent capability, but I believe the meeting facilitated an even broader agenda, which ultimately did indeed allow Israel to enhance its deterrent capability, with the full support of the US Joint Chiefs, if you get my drift.
Is there a Hebrew translation for Mifgash?
It should be remembered that Cohen was arrested and briefly detained by Israeli authorities while undertaking a speaking tour of Israel in 2000. They were keen to find out how he had gained access to such sensitive information.
'Israel and the Bomb' is probably the most meticulously researched book I have ever read, given the secrecy surrounding the subject matter. As you know, Cohen was shocked when Piper cited several portions of the book when making a case for Israeli complicity in JFK's assassination. Cohen didn't realise what light his work shed on a dark and mysterious corner of modern history.
The result of a research and writing grant in 1989, Cohen's book contains some 100 interviews (some of the interviewees asked not to be named) and sources a wide variety of archives, Government documents, personal collections, English and foreign language newspapers, unpublished materials, minutes of Cabinet meetings, journal articles, essays and books. It also boasts an extensive glossary of individuals, and English and foreign language acronyms.
In a nutshell, if you want the skinny on Israel's nuclear weapons program from 1956 to 1998, and how they managed to pull it off, this is your reference.
My favorite from the glossary of individuals is this one:
Teddy Kollek (1911- ) Hungarian born. Hagannah operative in the United States (1947-1952); Director-General of the Prime Minister's Office under David Ben-Gurion (1954-1963); mayor of Jerusalem (1965-1996).
-
That's very bad news. The Forum's a great resource for many topics.
In relation to political conspiracies, including JFK, I think this Forum has a format which is highly accessible and more easy to follow for beginners than that of competitors.
Not much use if we're operating in a vacuum.
-
Sid, Ron, Greg and Mark,
Thanks for your responses.
Sid, thanks for posting that extract from Leah's bio. I got it wrong. She said Dallas not Dealey.
Ron, I agree. There seems to be some confusion regarding Leah's recollections. However, the point is Rabin and Yariv didn't need to be at ground zero when the shots started. A well planned execution wouldn't necessarily require them to be witnesses. The fact that they had been nearby shortly before the assassination, and in the company of the top brass of the US for the previous 10 days or so suggests to me that something more than an innocent 'tour of facilities' was afoot. Other factors which arouse my suspicious nature are Rabin's amnesia and the fact that Israel's best and brightest military intelligence minds were liasing in company with their American counterparts right up to the eve of the assassination. If anyone was capable of executing what I believe was a carefully planned military operation, these are the guys. The mob, LBJ, Texas oil and even the CIA weren't up to it, but that's only my opinion.
Greg, your guess is as good as mine--I guess. Trouble is, a 'tour of facilities', by its very nature allows the tourists (and their gracious hosts) plenty of latitude to go wherever the hell they want. Visiting a place where there are no existing facilities is not out of the question, imo. It could be explained away on any number of pretexts. In any case, the entire tour of facilities caper may have been a charade to disguise 7 to 10 days of intense planning. There was much planning to be done in the pre-assassination phase, I would assume.
Mark, good points. On the plan to assassinate JFK in Chicago I must confess to scant knowledge of the intricate details. There are members here whose knowledge of this event far exceed mine. The only thing I recall is the incident regarding the elusive Homer Echhevaria who was apprehended while attempting to organise some kind of assassination plot. Curiously, he apparently remarked to CIA or FBI agents that "our new backers are Jews", upon which the entire episode was promptly extinguished from the public record on orders from Washington.
The Miami/Tampa plot is also interesting. Perhaps it was aborted because the local police could not be trusted to do as they were told. Perhaps a survey revealed that there were no satisfactory vantage points for the shooting. Or perhaps it was dry run, used only to scrutinise the actions and behavior of the Secret Service. One thing I've always wondered regarding that motorcade: Was it filmed? Many fascinating photos of that motorcade have been posted on the Forum with smilin' Bill Greer at the wheel. I would assume the plotters filmed it and studied it carefully. One wonders whether the US and Israeli brass took time off from their busy schedule to pay close attention to JFK's visit to Florida.
Was Ruby a Mossad agent? It's possible but his behavior doesn't seem to fit the template for a Mossad agent. He was headstrong and quick tempered. FWIW, I think he was persuaded to kill Oswald by Lansky, through an intermediary. As well as being revered by all as the elder statesman of organised crime, Lansky was also connected to naval intelligence. Lansky was part of a naval intelligence project named B-3 during WW2 which was under the command of Lieutenant Commander Charles Haffenden. He was assigned his own code number as a naval intelligence contact.
Finally, the other strange thing about Mifgash is why was there such haste on the part of all parties to get this 'dialogue' up and running? Rusk and the Americans already knew that JFK was going to give the thumbs down to Israel's request for surface-to-surface missiles. The upgrade of Israel's old Sherman tank fleet hardly required a 'security dialogue', imo. The US Military rarely needs its arm twisted to sell conventional weaponry to willing customers. Why did the US Secretary of State agree so quickly when he knew this dialogue was going to be a waste of time? JFK had already turned down Ben-Gurion's repeated requests for a formal defence pact between the two nations because he didn't want to damage relations with Arab nations in the region. His position on Dimona was plain. Why the sudden urgency from the US and Israeli military for a dialogue which had limited prospects of breaking new ground?
What the hell was Mifgash all about? We haven't been told but I suspect the worst.
-
Sid, consider people like Karen Silkwood and Erin Brokavich. I'm talking about ordinary people with ordinary occupations and debts - including a retired welder. No one is setting out to prove anyone wrong - and no one I'm talking about has the time or inclination to indulge in such nonsense. When it all comes out, you will of course, be free to continue supporting whatever theory you want, and maybe one day, you, me and Mark can get together over a beer and discuss it.
It's a deal. I don't know what 'nonsense' you're alluding to, but I'll be glad to shout the first round. The Lord Nelson in Kent Street has their own boutique brewery and serves pints of high quality (and high strength) ales.
'Admirals Blood' is my favorite.
-
Whether this (secret) meeting was connected to the assassination is open to debate, but its close proximity to the assassination--November 13-14, 1963--has always intrigued me.
Cohen's 'Israel and the bomb' explains the background to the meetings: (pp171-172)
The first US-Israeli security dialogue took place in July 1962. The first exchange was meant to be a one time meeting, not an institutional discussion. The idea of high level, regular security dialogues was presented to (Israeli PM) Eshkol by (Deputy Ambassador) Mordechai Gazit in late August 1963. Eshkol liked the idea and presented it days later in his ministerial consultations, authorising the Israeli Embassy in Washington to give it a prominent place in their coming discussions with US officials. Meir raised the idea, along with a request for tanks and missiles, with Rusk in New York in late September. The secretary agreed to such high-level US-Israeli exchanges within weeks, particularly to discuss missile and other nonconventional weaponry developments in Egypt. Deputy Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Chief of Military Intelligence Colonel Aharon Yariv were to represent Israel in that strategic exchange set for mid-November....
The dialogue took place in two sessions on 13-14 November. On the question of the significance of the Egyptian missile development program there was a difference of opinion.....The US rejected the view that there existed any operational Egyptial missile capability, and considered the effort to be in an early research and develpment stage. It also doubted that Nasser had the technical or financial means to produce a force of one thousand missiles, as Israeli reports suggested, which Americans estimated would cost half a billion dollars. The Kennedy Administration did not share the Israeli view that the Egyptian missile program constituted a real immediate danger to Israel, and opposed providing American surface-to-surface missiles to Israel.
They also differed on the question of the probability of an Egyptian surprise attack on Israel. Ben-Gurion was obsessed with Israel's vulnerability to such a possibility, a concern that played an important role in his decision to develop a nuclear option. American officials, however, were less impressed by the danger.....
The only aspect of the dialogue on which Rabin and Komer reached an understanding was the issue of tanks: the IDF nedded to modernise its old Sherman fleet........
So, except for the promise to update their old Sherman tank fleet, Israel had little joy from this dialogue.
The Israeli delegation packed up and left for home, one might presume. But no, Yitzhak Rabin was in Dealey Plaza on November 22, according to his wife's bio, published after Rabin's death. Strangely, Rabin failed to mention this fact in his own memoirs.
Rabin and Yariv were taken on a tour of facilities by top US Military officials, yet somehow Rabin ended up in Dealey Plaza on November 22.
So, my suggestion is, what issues were discussed between the Israeli brass and the US Military AFTER the official dialogue concerning Egypt and its missiles was over?
Final preparations between US and Israeli Military Intelligence for Kennedy's removal is my guess.
-
Greg,
Your claim that Jewish influence in Dallas did not extend beyond the Jewish community is merely an opinion, imo.
As a statement of fact, it certainly can't be proven.
Mark, I said, "with only one or two exceptions", and I was referring to direct political influence. Jews did have influence in the arts, professions and commerce (Oi vey! There are those damn stereotypes again!). What would you accept as proof of this? There is a book on the subject called "Pioneer Jewish Texans: Their Impact on Texas and American History for Four Hundred Years 1590-1990". You can pick up a used copy for $2.48US at Amazon.
It wasn't until 1984 that Dallas even had a Jewish Mayor. If Jews had been so politically influential, why did it take until 1984 to get one of their own into that office? Just as Bouhe was the "go-to" guy for White Russians, so Julius Schepps was for the Jewish community. I'm sure you're aware of similar roles played by prominent members of various communities in Sydney.
The argument's drifting from the central point, imo (at least the point I'm trying to stress), namely that many of the central players in the assassination and coverup seemed to share a common unity of purpose--support for the state of Israel. Not all supporters of Israel were Jewish. LBJ, for example. At this point it is difficult to pinpoint how much support for Israel's predicament vis-a-vis JFK existed within the power elite of Dallas but it's plain, imo, that many Dallas's power elite hated JFK and needed little persuasion in order to lend assistance to the plan. Separating the manipulators from the manipulated is the tricky part. From my standpoint, Israel gained more from the assassination than right wing rednecks did. Civil rights legislation was their reward.
I would also refer you to this testimony from one-time Ruby lawyer, Stanley Kaufman:
Well, Tom Howard, I think, talked to me several times about this Rubenstein deal. I would call Tom Howard and say, "The Jewish community is in an uproar about this, I had a call from so-and-so," and this was true this is true. In fact, I had a call from Julius Schepps and some of the most responsible and influential people we do have in Dallas too, and they said to me, "I hope you are not going to get involved in this case," and to Julius I remember I said, "Well, Julius, you know--" he heard my name mentioned, and I said, "Julius, if I were able to represent the man I would""...Julius Schepps and some of the most responsible and influential people we do have in Dallas..." the "we" being the Jewish community. I would think if Schepps was involved, he'd want one of his "own kind" representing Ruby. Instead, he advised him to steer clear of it.
Jewish influence in Dallas circa 1963 (and more importantly, support for the state of Israel in Dallas circa 1963) is often dismissed by those citing the argument that right-wing rednecks are universally anti-Semitic.
Since that wasn't what I argued, I have to wonder why you make the point? Regarding what I did say, your argument isn't with me, Mark, it's with Larrie Schmidt. I can put you in touch if you want to take it up with him.
It's true, the stereotypical redneck hates Jews--and hispanics, asians, africans and all ethnic minorities. However, the possibility that the conflict between JFK and Israel played a role in the assassination can't be dismissed on the basis of a widely held belief in the behavior of stereotypes, imo.
The conspiracy is close to being unlocked. Israel, along with several other groups/individuals under suspicion won't be in the picture.
This is big news, Greg. I hope you are right. You obviously know more about this than me. Frankly, if it were proven that Israel was not involved in the conspiracy I would be surprised but I think the truth, if it were ever revealed, will be surprising. Closure is what everyone wants.
Jack Ruby took the precaution of changing his name and subsequently carried out clandestine operations on behalf of Israel while living and working right in the heart of redneck centrale. He moved to Dallas in 1947--one year before Israel's creation. Establishing a base of operations in a locality where it is presumed that an anti-semitic hostility prevails could be regarded as quite dumb--or perhaps the perfect cover.
Ruby was into anything he could potentially make a buck out of.
Sure. But, like many of his colleagues, he was passionate about Israel. That's my point. How passionate? Enough to participate in a conspiracy to remove a President whom Israel deemed a serious threat to their long term viability and install a man with a long record of support for Israel? History has shown that JFK's removal and LBJ's accession was a major turning point in Israel's fortunes, allowing them to become a regional superpower, enjoying almost unconditional financial and military support from the US ever since.
Also, the fact that Bloom was appointed to an official capacity by JFK doesn't exonerate him from suspicion, imo.
Agreed. But it does militate against involvement.
JFK also appointed Myer Feldman as his advisor--ostensibly as a reward to the Jewish lobby for its support of his 1960 campaign. However, RFK is on record as stating that Feldman's 'major interest was Israel rather than the US' (see Piper thread). Where Feldman's real loyalties lay is very much an open question and I believe Bloom might fall into the same category. It's clear to me that JFK was betrayed by those who had his confidence, as well as by those, like LBJ, who he kept at arm's length.
They do say, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer".
-
A fine piece from Atzmon, Sid.
The global community, with the exception of those addicted to screeching tabloids, are wising up to the west's hollow spin of recent years, imo. As Atzmon says, Ahmadinejad has played it straight throughout the current crisis. Not so our leaders.
Iran claims it wants a nuclear capacity for peaceful purposes. Israel claims Iran will attck them, but who has the better track record for honesty? Israel promised JFK they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. They lied.
As Atzmon says, why should Israel be granted the luxury of such security while attempting to deny other nations in the region the benefit of similar security? Why should Arab states be denied the protection from possible Israeli aggression that a nuclear capacity provides? After all, Israel's history of aggression against its neighbours is a matter of historical record.
The real question is this: Do the Israelis consider themselves a master race playing the role of undisputed ruler of the region? And does the US and its allies agree with them?
-
Bloom, Valenti, Feldman, Schepps, Rostow, Paley, Sarnoff, Lansky, Ruby, LBJ and who knows who else. Can't think of any more off the top of my head just now.
Passionately pro-Israel to a man. Where there's smoke.
Slightly OT, but I read a book a while back which contained a pro-Israel rant attributed to Clay Shaw prior to the assassination---can't remember which book and unable to trace the quote through the internet. Perfect recall would be a rare gift.
New Zealand's War on Terror
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
uuuuuuuuuuuuh, I know that, Einstein. Er, no, I'm insinuating that the links are difficult to read because they're in SPANISH.
??????? uuuuuh which “pro-Zionist” source did I cite? LOL!
LOL! Nearly all of your cites are pro-Zionist. Just like you.
Why would security consultants be visiting the parliament of a Latin-American country? I can think of a few reasons that would make more sense than a false flag bombing. See below.
!!!!!!!!Yeah, right. Your normal security consultant walks around with 9mm automatics and military style grenades. Security consultant my ass.
Perhaps it didn’t get wider attention because they didn’t deem it newsworthy.
Yeah right. A terrorist threat not newsworthy in the West. I can see the sub-editors meeting now. "Let's just forget about it---people are getting tired of hearing about terror attacks".
If the Israel lobby is so powerful and adept at keep such stories out of the news then how do you explain Cameron’s “Israeli Art Student” series on Fox or all the media accounts of Israelis getting arrested after 9/11?
Because once a story is corroborated by a sufficient amount of sources, then it can't be ignored. The authorities must then provide an explanation. The Israeli Art Student stories were reported more widely than this incident in the Mexican Congress----and it was all over the internet. The mainstream press was forced to provide an explanation. The media then spun the story to its satisfaction.
1) What possible benefit would Israel derive from Mexico entering the “war on terror”?
It's in Israel's interest to keep the West's 'war on terror' at fever pitch. If you don't believe me, you only have to listen to Israel's carefully groomed mouthpiece Mark Regev, who is constantly exhorting the West to confront the 'terrorist threat' that countries like Iran and Syria 'represent'. Keeping the war on terror at boiling point helps to permanently sabotage relations between the Arab nations and the West. Israel sells the war on terror to any nation that will listen.
35) The behavior of the “Israelis” doesn’t seem consistent with “black ops” agents on a ‘false flag’ mission. Presumably they would want to attract as little attention to themselves as possible but according to the “La Voz de Aztlan” they were posing as press photographers drew the attention of the sugar plantation workers due to their suspicious behavior. This basically correlates with an account given in a forum posting on the official Mexican Presidential cite which indicates “Salvador Gerson Smike” (sic) was taking photos of the workers and drew their attention due to his suspicious behavior, only taking photos from the waist down (“sólo les tomaba fotos de la cintura para abajo”) and was carrying a pistol (“armado con una pistola”). As with other accounts it only mentions “Smike” as carrying a gun. Why would they draw attention to themselves photographing the sugar workers? Why would one (or both) of them be carrying a not very well concealed 9mm? None on the accounts said they had a working bomb. What do we suppose their plan was to hook up the bomb after they had drawn attention to themselves? Wouldn’t the most logical thing been to have gone in with the bomb already ready discretely left it some where and left? Why enter the ground of the Congress? A car bomb or flying a plane into a target would have been much easier to pull off.
I don't agree at all. Who knows what the grand plan was? The fact is, they were caught with dangerous weapons inside the Mexican Congress. Under normal circumstances that's probable jail time and a storm of publicity. In this case, it didn't happen. That's highly suspicious. Your dubious rationalising doesn't sway me at all.
Ah, how much easier life would be (for some) if all the critics of Zionism were snug in jail following prosecutions in which truth is no defence!
Very big “IF”. The source of that post was an article called “Stranger Than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9/11” some times attributed to ‘anonymous’ and at others to “Dr. Albert D. Pastore Ph.D” which according to Amazon is a “pen-name”* and indeed I couldn’t find any references to any one named ‘Albert D. Pastore’ or anyone named Albert Pastore’ with the title Dr. or Ph.D that didn’t reference the article or from CT sites or forums. So it’s the an unsourced claim by an anonymous author. It wouldn’t surprise me if the story did get a brief mention on CNN though, and if it I’d like to know what exactly they said and if there was any follow up
* http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Than-Fictio...e/dp/1893302474