Mark Stapleton

Ron, I agree. Robert is very intelligent.

Tim, So finally an admission, a grudging admission, that you haven't read Piper's book. Duly noted.

Roger, Welcome to the Forum. Interesting points. I think I'm starting to come around to the idea that LBJ didn't organise the assassination, although he knew about it in advance. From the time Phil Graham and Joe Alsop first suggested to JFK that LBJ should be his running mate, the powerful interests LBJ represented were looking for an opportunity to install him if JFK became troublesome for them. By 1963 their worst fears about JFK had been realised and they decided he had to go. Who planned it? Military intelligence, maybe, with help. LBJ's implication in the murder of Henry Marshall, John Kinser etc doesn't necessarily qualify him to plan the JFK assassination, a much more intricate operation. LBJ's possible involvement in those earlier murders, which his powerful backers would have known about, probably just served to reassure them that LBJ was made of the right stuff. He was one of them.

It is even worse than that. He actually supports the "goodies" and is willing to try and cover-up for them (CIA dirty-tricks campaigns, corrupt Republicans, anti-Communist death-squads, etc.) See for example his postings on Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran-Contra, release of CIA documents, etc. The current attacks on Michael Collins Piper is just an attempt to show that there are people around who are more right-wing than he is. Personally, I am not convinced. Based on what they have actually written on this Forum, Gratz seems to be to the right of Piper. John, I agree John. Tim just can't recognise the double standards he employs. From what I've seen, Tim is less tolerant and more rabid than Piper, IMO.

Tim, No, it's your post that is the most telling. You've just proven that you percieve everything in terms of goodies and baddies. This is why you'll never be of any use in trying to establish who killed JFK. It's wired into your head that the baddies (as you percieve them) must have done it. You refuse to entertain any other possible outcome. Your objectivity is fatally compromised.

James, What a bizarre character. I suspect he wasn't just nuts. Sounds like the CIA were in there somewhere. I don't suppose the transportation of the Rambler might be related to the assassination. Was it light green?

Nancy, My favorite of the trilogy is #2. The character of Hyman Roth, chillingly portrayed by Lee Strasberg, is based on Meyer Lansky. The latter half is set a few years after Godfather #1, with the Cuban Revolution and the removal of OC interests in that country as a backdrop. In Godfather #1, the character of Moe Greene, played by Alex Rocco, is based on Bugsy Seigel--almost down to the last detail. Like Seigel, Moe Greene also gets shot through the eye. IMDb currently rates Godfather #1 as the greatest movie of all time with Godfather #2 close behind, rated #3. Great reviews, trivia, profiles etc are available on that site. See link below: http://university.imdb.com/title/tt0071562/

It was clearly organized by Don Black, the founder of the Stormfront organization. So Piper what the heck are you quibbling about? It is merely your way of evading answering my question whether you agree with the outrageous statements of Carto, Duke, Black and their ilk. Never mind that. I think you should answer Robert's question: Have you actually read Piper's book? Or have you been making all these posts dismissing Piper's thesis without having read the book?

I was merely joking about the hostess's apparent faux pas. It wasn't a serious comment. That's why I added the smiley faces. What's your problem?

James, LOL. I trust you have already struck her off any future dinner party list.

Mark, I applied to go on the show soon after it started. Guess what my nominated subject was? Guess who never got an invite? I put it down to the subject being so contentious. But looks like it was just me! Greg, A former work collegue went on the show's first series--he actually made the Grand Final and ran third. He told me that they only accept one contestant for any given topic. So there's only one contestant in each series who can pick the assassination as a special subject. Because of its popularity, the JFK assassination is one of the first slots filled each series. There has been an assassinologist on the two previous series but both were first round casualties. Apparently they were on a shoestring budget in the first series. They probably already had an applicant from Melbourne (where it's filmed) who nominated JFK as a special subject, so maybe they decided to save the expense of a plane ticket to fly you in. They made great savings on the matter of prizemoney. It was and still is zero.

Ron, I needed a double take, but it hit. You never disappoint. Absolutely never.

The question I found a bit tricky was: "From the time Kennedy was shot, America was effectively without a president for around how many hours?" The programs answer was two hours, obviously in consideration of the time of LBJ taking the oath of office. But a constitutional scholar, considering the word "effectively," would have answered that there is no interregnum. In the abstract, LBJ was president from the moment of JFK's death. Bobby Kennedy made this point himself when he informed Johnson that there was no need to hold up Air Force One in Dallas waiting for Judge Sarah Hughes. T.C. Good point, Tim. Technically the question is wrong. They should have asked "how much time elapsed before LBJ took the oath?", to remove any ambiguity about the question. A lot of the subject matter is still under dispute so they have to tread warily when writing the questions. Some of the questions asked of David Gilbert were ridiculously easy (who established the WC, who got arrested for handing out pro-Cuba leaflets in NO etc.). In the second round they will get harder. Hopefully, the ABC will get their facts straight. And the burning question is........what was his theory?

Pat, Nice post. Tim, you are going to have to face these questions. Have a good, hard look at the Bush Government's policies because they will burden America for quite a while.

We've been through all this before, haven't we? Not another one of these dogfights about the Z-Film. Len, just because you are in disagreement over the issue doesn't mean David Healy is a disinformation agent. If he were, he would be posting all the time to get the message across, don't you think? David has made 100 odd posts fewer than me but has been a member for nearly a year longer. Tim Gratz has made eight times more posts than David. I think you must just like these pointless slanging matches.

For those interested, last Sunday (Feb 19), the ABC quiz show "Einstein Factor" featured a contestant whose special subject was the JFK assassination. David Gilbert, from Sydney won the contest and answered 14 of 15 questions correctly. Some were easy, some a bit harder. I was surprised about the one he missed because the compere gave him the first two names of the answer--James Jesus--and he couldn't give the last name. But he was impressive, all the same. He will go through to the next round on Sunday March 5 at 6.30pm on ABC. Here's the site. You can try the quiz. http://www.abc.net.au/einsteinfactor/

The book has over 1200 footnotes so I'm not getting into the process of citing all the references. It's the result of a ten year project and much of his documentation was courtesy of Israel's thirty year declassification rule. But still much is not available. It's a genuine research work, IMO. But don't take my word for it--get it and see for yourself. p.s. Cohen was arrested by the Israeli Government when he went there on a speaking tour in 2000. Held for a few days and interrogated about his sources, I believe. I read this on the net somewhere so I can't say it's gospel truth.

The meeting could also have been in part an excuse for Rabin to come to DC, and travel on to Dallas, on what his wife called a tour of U.S. military facilities. Rabin never told us what he was doing in Dallas, as he left the whole second half of 1963 out of his autobiography, in which he never even mentions John Kennedy. Pretty strange, that's for sure. Things like that are what arouse suspicion. It's only natural.

Mark Please elaborate on the Hawk missile deal - what were the "Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem"? When were the missile delivered? I've read the deal was made Aug. '62 and delivery was made in '63 in a few sources on the Net but none of them mention when Israel took possession of them. If JFK was so upset about Dimona why didn't he suspend delivery? For Piper's book to be plausible the situation would have had to have reached a "breaking point", i.e. that Kennedy was threatening Israel with sanctions so severe if it did not comply immediately and completely, that it would have had sufficient motive to organize the assassination. Other than some threatening letters which didn't mention any specific repercussions what signs are there that Kennedy had threatened to, was close to or had even contemplated taking such an action? If he was on the verge of such a move what haven't we heard about it from any of Kennedy's biographers or advisors? I don't think the "Jewish lobby" was very powerful at the time. If it was the US would have sold arms to Israel long before 1962 and without it being part of a deal concerning the refugees. You've put your self in a bit of a Catch-22, if the Jewish lobby was so powerful back then what action would Kennedy have dared taken that would have been prejudicial enough to give Israel sufficient motive to get involved in such a risky venture? After the disastrous Lavon and Israel Beer affairs is hard to believe Israel would risk it's very existence except under extreme circumstances. Lavon affair – In 1954 Israeli agents bombed three targets in Egypt in an attempt to dissuade the British from giving up control of the Suez Canal. No one was killed or injured and damage was minor but when the agents were caught it was a diplomatic disaster for Israel. The operation was ordered by the head of military intelligence it is unclear if anyone higher up approved it. Pinhas Lavon, the defense minister was accused of involvement. The leader of the operation was arrested in 1957 for trying to sell secret information to the Egyptians. Many suspected that he was already working with them in 1954 and that Egyptian intelligence knew about the bombings before they happened. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...tory/lavon.html Israel Beer who had been a close friend of and advisor to Ben Gurion was arrested in 1961 for selling top secret information to the Soviets. He had been spying for the Russians since at least before the Suez campaign in 1956. The fact that he wasn't circumcised led some to believe he wasn't even Jewish. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...raphy/Beer.html Is it plausible that only a few years after such high level 'moles' were caught that any country would under take such a high risk operation? Why would the CIA risk getting them involved? Len Len, Yeah, that looks like good research you've done. I'm on a learning curve myself so I'm by no means an expert. Also remember that many documents relating to this are classified or incomplete (parts missing), including files of the IAEC, Ministry of Defense, Prime Ministers papers on nuclear issues and minutes of Cabinet meetings. The author of Israel and the Bomb acknowledges that his is an incomplete work. On your points, I don't know what the specific concessions were or when the missiles were delivered. I don't know whether these factors impact on the premise but I may be wrong. As I stated on the "Final Judgement" thread, the missiles were ostensibly the quid pro quo for: A. Israel's agreeing to the policy of inspections and B. The 1962 discovery of Israel's missile gap vis-a-vis the UAR. On your other points, I think you're underestimating the tone of JFK's letters to Ben-Gurion and Eshkol. There were several exchanges and the language become more direct each time. Most commentators I have read (including MCP) say the tone and content went beyond accepted diplomatic protocol and I must agree. Israel viewed it as an intrusion on their sovereignty and from what I'm discovering about Israel there was broad bipartisan agreement on issues of national security and no party dissention. These issues were discussed by special commitees formed by DBG and were not discussed in the Knesset or in public or the press. JFK was deadly serious and a collision was apparent unless a circuit breaker was found. One reason put forward by Cohen for JFK's hardline position on Dimona was that the Cuban Missile Crisis had spooked him badly and he immediately determined that nuclear weapons should not continue proliferating full stop. A nuclear transfer agreement, which called on nuclear nations not to transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states and for non-nuclear states not to manufacture them, similar to the one first put to the UN by Ireland in 1958, was JFK's aim in early to mid 1963 and it was the forerunner to the NTBT with the Soviets in August '63. JFK was almost obsessed with non-proliferation and his position was not negotiable. It should also be noted that all these negotiations were hidden from the public in both countries. You should really get Cohen's book and post your opinions. I'd be keen to hear them. Your point about Israel not taking such a risk doesn't wash, IMO. Somebody took a risk, didn't they? Israel took bold risks in the past. They defied the US over withdrawal from the Sinai during the Suez crisis long after Britain and France backed down. The Lavon affair you mentioned was the result of a failed covert operation by Israel against British and US installations in Egypt in July 1954. They sunk the USS Liberty in 1967. They took risks. And the risk is reduced when you can make your presence opaque.

The high level security dialogue between Israel and the US which took place in two sessions on November 13-14, 1963 (mifgash) was at the request of Israel. This was the one which Deputy Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Chief of Military Intelligence Colonael Aharon Yariv attended. From Piper, pp170-171: Just as US representatives would visit Dimona, Israel asked that military officers visit the Sixth Fleet and co-ordinate contingency plans. When Israel conceded to Kennedy's demands on the matter of Dimona, it must have expected that the United States would make good its' commitments to Israel's security. After the first dialogue had taken place in July 1962, which was meant to be a once only meeting, the idea of regular exchanges was presented to Israeli PM Eshkol by Deputy Ambassador Mordechai Galit in August 1963. The idea was presented to Secretary of State Rusk in late September 1963 and was accepted within weeks. The main issue discussed was the possibility of a surprise attack on Israel by UAR missiles and the outcome of the meeting was that the two parties disagreed on this point. If this meeting is the only evidence of Israeli participation in JFK's assassination, then it's a pretty thin case, although the Israelis demanded secrecy. It proves no more than the fact that in November 1963, Israel had great concern for its safety. Others factors like LBJ's reversal of the hard line on Dimona are suspicious, IMO, but not conclusive. It's now up to Michael Collins Piper to present additional evidence to support the premise.

I can't help myself, but I'll look like an idiot if we don't retrieve the Ashes.

Tim, Here in Australia we have a game called "cricket" (England tries to play it too, sorry John and Steve). What happens is, when the batsman gets clean bowled--and the middle wooden stump cartwheels at great speed into the air--the batsman is out and must leave the field and return to the pavillion. Robert just clean bowled you. You have a missing stump. Gloating isn't productive or helpful so I want to say that I re-read parts of Cohen's book and believe it reveals the reason for Israel's acquisition of Hawk missiles from the Kennedy Administration. Cohen states, pp116-117: "In the July 1962 Revolution Day parade, Egypt, for the first time displayed ballistic missiles, boasting they could cover every point "south of Beirut". Israel knew that Egypt began a missile project by recruiting German rocket scientists in Europe but the public display of the missiles (they were only prototypes) alarmed the Israeli defense establishment. Though Israel had launched its own Shavit II missile with great publicity a year earlier, it was merely an experimental meteorological rocket. In July 1962 Israel had no significant ballistic missile program of its own and all of a sudden it "discovered" its own "missile gap". In mid August 1962, JFK sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft the a deal that would tie the US supply of Air Defense Hawk missiles to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem. I may have said 1961 in an earlier post but it was 1962, making the sale of Hawk missiles a natural consequence of impending UAR missile procurement. The other point is that they were "air defense" missiles which, I assume, have no attack capability. I'm only guessing here but it seems out of character for JFK to arm Israel for a missile war. So it appears that JFK was responding to Israel's legitimate concerns about a possible UAR missile strike. Remember, Israel's reactor at Dimona was still in the development stage and not expected to be fully operational "until late 1964". So JFK wasn't forging a unique alliance with Israel or showing any particular favoritism. Israel suddenly discovered its own missile gap and JFK responded with "defense" missiles with strings attached.

Tell me this post was a joke. Please tell me. Let's see if I have this right. You're saying its a good thing that documents relating to a half-assed 1948 scheme to drop leaflets from ballons in Iron Curtain countries should remain classified because terrorists might get wind of it (excuse the pun) and copy the idea.....in 2006? When those children in the playgrounds read these pamphlets they will be enraged, and yell "Hey man, we've been lied to. Let's become terrorists". I have to know. You're submitting this as a serious post, are you?

Now it's TWO books demolishing Piper's book? It's becoming a virtual avalanche. Excellent timing, I must say. No coincidences there. Theodore Racoosin, eh? Gerry's point man at the White House, was he? So this means Racoosin and JFK were like blood brothers, eh? In the same way that C Douglas Dillon and JFK were like blood brothers, is that what you mean? I've heard his name before so I did a search on Google to refresh my memory. He gets a mention in Hinckle's "The fish is red" and William Turner's "Rear Window". If anyone has read these I would be keen to know in what context he is mentioned. He is also mentioned in the book which is the title of this thread. In the update of "The Fish Is Red" called "Deadly Secrets," Racoosin is, indeed, depicted as a side-door entry into the White House. Apparently Gerry Hemming's boy Howard Davis wanted the White House to know what had just been learned from Eddie "Bayo" Perez - that two Soviet Colonels in Cuba knew where nukes were hidden in Cuba after they'd purportedly all been removed, and wanted to defect to the US - so Davis approached Racoosin to pass the word along. Racoosin initially said the White House was very interested in details, so much so, in fact, that "a high official" inside the WH suggested - via Racoosin - that an intelligence operative accompany Perez/Bayo into Cuba to debrief the two Soviets. Bayo declined, saying he no longer trusted CIA. Racoosin was asked by the White House to organize meetings of anti-Castro leaders to "find out what the CIA was doing. The President, it was said, didn't trust the agency and felt he was receiving bad information." [THE BOOK'S CITED SOURCE: Hemming and Davis] I have Turner's "Rearview Mirror" here somewhere and will try to find if it includes anything different. Unfortunately, my '93 edition of "FJ" doesn't have an index, so I cannot easily locate in it whatever it may include on Racoosin. The most interesting thing was that I checked in Dallek's bio of JFK, "JFK-An unfinished life"---800 pages long and a great read if you're a fan of JFK like me, and guess what? That's right, nothing. Not a sausage. Not even a passing mention of JFK's recently discovered dear friend. p.s. Way to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Tim. Just post all these new discoveries on three different threads, using different bits on each thread. Kind of like immersing the Forum in a fog. However, some can see through it. Mark, you must have those special 3-D glasses that allow one to see through the billows of puffery that sprout up here, courtesy of our "Key West Israel expert." Might I borrow them some time? Robert, Thanks for that. Billows of puffery is the perfect expression for what Tim's trying to run past the Forum here. Racoosin's an interesting character. A New York banker and financier who was apparently deeply enmeshed in the intelligence milieu. Perhaps he deserves much further scrutiny. Good work, Tim. Often I don't really feel like respnding to some of Tim's posts. Some have such a tenuous link to reality that they are almost laughable, like the many he has posted in support of the Castro did it theory. Trouble is, I have to because if I don't, Tim will consider his highly dubious suppositions to be unchallenged and will later cite them as undisputed facts. He's a slippery one, our Tim. p.s. Judging by the way you have effectively flayed Tim in regard to his rubbish concerning Castro, I wouldn't have thought you needed any 3-D glasses. Your vision's fine.

Yes Tim, you're wrong again. (you're keeping up a perfect record). I do have that temerity. See my posts in the JFK debate, "MCP: Final Judgement" and "The book that demolishes Final Judgement".