Mark Stapleton

My impression (in answer to the question) is, very.

Ron,

I agree. Robert is very intelligent.

Mark:

Despite Piper's denials, I am certain that there were numerous chapters of a version of "Final Judgment" posted on the Internet a number of years back and that I read them all. (As I recall there were about twelve chapters.) I may even have printed them out but I have literally two or three file cabinents of printed documents not necessarily in much of an order.

I obviously cannot know remember every sentence or paragraph but I do remember how he constructed his argument and who his major players were.

I obviously consider it important to expose the viciousness of Piper's views but I have also tried from time to time to demonstrate the weakness of his arguments.

For instance, he has argued in support of the proposition of Jewish involvement that Ruby went to the Friday press conference claiming to be an interpreter for Israeli newspapers. A rather ridiculous argumnt, I would think. Israel supplied Ruby with false credentials that would link Israel to the plot? Somehow that seems a bit below the intelligence of the Mossad.

Tim,

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

Hello everyone! I am a new member of this forum and have read with interest the debate about Lyndon B. Johnson's motives in 1960. I think some caution is needed here.

Lyndon B. Johnson isn't exactly one of my favourite politicians. As a matter of fact i think he was the worst president in the US after the war, he was a xxxx, whealer-dealer, blackmailer, war-monger and i don't know what. He was perhaps a murderer too, the information about him, Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace doesn't smell good. (The Kennedy assassination isn't the only murder in which he is a suspect). And for him the assassination came at a very convenient time, so it is no coincidence he is a suspect. But i am not at all convinced that he was involved. And if we are to conclude that he planned the assasination already in 1960 i think we need either solid evidence about such planning or we must at least be able to exclude other possible motives for his actions.

Many take it for granted that Johnson had "the means and the motives" to carry out and cover up the assassination. I have no problems with the motives, but i am not sure about the means. Many suspect involvement by rogue elements in the CIA, the military or the secret service. But if that is the case, is it so obious that Johnson could conspire with them? The vice president is not the second most powerfull politician in the US, that is why we are having this discussion. The Vice President is not part of the daily decission-making in most US administrations.

It has also been suggested that Johnson was involved in another way: by conspiring with Texas oil millionaires and criminals like Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace. This theory can't be dismissed, but there are some problems with it. First of all, if Billie Sol Estes' confession is the whole story about the murder we will have a huge "surplus" of information. What about the mobsters who confessed involment both before and after the assassination, all the smoke comming out of New Orleans, Oswald's mysterious trip to Mexico City and more? I may have missed something, but i find it difficult to link this to Estes' confession about what took place. I also think a very good question was raised in an earlier post: If Johnson was involved, why isn't it possible to find evidence against him in CIA and FBI documents? This is very relevant in the Estes-Wallace theory. If Johnson was behind a conspiracy that did not include the FBI or the CIA, why haven't these agencies tried to uncover it? It could clear them from suspicion. Lyndon B. Johnson's legacy would take a heavy beating, but the power structures in Washington would not suffer from it.

So what were Johnson's motives in 1960? It is not easy to rationalize about his actions, we can only speculate. He might have thought that Kennedy would die, or even believe he would be murdered, and therefore see this as a chance to be president. He was cynical enough to make such calculations, but that does not have to mean he was involved in the murder. Another possible reason is that he miscalculated his position as a Vice Precident. He might have thought that the scandals that threatened his carreer in 1963 would not be known if he was vice president, that the White House would protect his secrets because they could threaten the entire administration. It also possible that he thought his abilities as a blackmailaer would secure him more power than VPs usually have. He perhaps even thought he could blackmail Kennedy out of office or compromize him one way or the other to force him to resign. There are many possible reasons for Johnson's actions in 1960, i think we need more solid evidence if we are to believe he planned the assassination already then.

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.

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.

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.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

the villains should not be allowed to merchandise their version of modern history.

What a telling comment THAT was! The villains were not the Communist murderers (every bit as bad as Piper's Nazis) but the villains were those FIGHTING Communism.

Robert, you were on the wrong side of history.

The good guys (not the villains) won.

So why don't you get over it?

And history will be written by those on my side. Even the honest liberals are coming around to admit that. Witness the Richard Reeves interview on the Charlie Rose show last week, where Reeves, an admitted liberal Democrat, expressed his admiration for Ronald Reagan and what Reagan accomplished.

I hope you understand that little fact, and cry yourself to sleep tonight.

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.

Not that this relates directly to the assassination of John Kennedy, but it might reflect on a level of covert operator who is dirtied deliberately then dangled openly to see who he attracts. Then again, he might just be completely nuts.

Case in point is Bobby Joe Keesee, a Korean War veteran, winner of the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. In 1962, Keesee steals a light plane in Key West and flies it to Cuba. At this point, Keesee is listed as absent without leave from the army at Ft. Huachuca in Arizona. Also aboard the plane is an alleged CIA man named Buddy Carson and a Latino named Jose. Keesee dropped them in the jungle about 40 miles from Havana where they were supposedly going to act as spies for the United States. Keesee takes off and is subsequently forced to land where he is captured by Cuban authorities. Keesee claims asylum but the Cubans hand him over to U.S. officials thinking that his name is Bobby J. Gish. The Americans know him as Bobby Joe Keesee.

Keesee is then charged with transporting a stolen car (a Rambler) from California to Texas; the first of 153 Federal charges.

Keesee claims that he was encouraged by CIA man Buddy Carson to do this and to also cash several bad checks at military reservations across the United States. Carson claimed this was to forge the reputation of an army fugitive which would allegedly help him if captured by the Cubans.

In 1969, Keesee was in the Middle East. He was supposedly visiting Israel but on a sight seeing excursion into Jordan, he was seized and held hostage for 36 hours. No other details there.

In 1970, Keesee hi-jacked a light plane out of Thailand and forced the Thai pilots to fly him to a beach in North Vietnam. He leaves his passport on board and makes a dash for the jungle as the plane comes under fire from a village close by. Keesee is captured and interrogated by the North Vietnamese where his front teeth are knocked out and his fingernails are pulled out. They think he is a spy. He was then released with 107 military POW's which included John McCain.

In 1974, Keesee was held in San Diego on Federal charges that he 'aided, abetted, induced and caused' the kidnapping of U.S. Vice Consul John Patterson who was beaten to death shortly after his kidnapping. His remains were found in the Sonora Desert.

Like I said, he could just be nuts.

James

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?

The first part of the movie one and two are rather boring. Hard to get into but once interested

then it get's good. Now as far as Godfatehr III Well it is the best out of the group.

What I am told is that it is based on real story.

IF that is the case than why is it that I never heard of the attack in New Jersey and that kind

of a killing?

Is there something behind that and or another cover up on that story?

I do know that in the third part there is some facts for certain real.

Anyone know anything they wish to add to what is with it of this movie film into the reality of it?

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/

Well here is the meeting at which Piper was a featured speaker:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.p...-5-20&e=205&c=1

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?

a strange set of reaction to a good question. Who was Lee Harvey Oswald? Writing a person off for asking the hard questions is hardly the way to finding out, or getting people involved/interested. Surely there's no value in such snobbery. For those who ridicule this 'hostess' person: who was LHO?

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?

And the burning question is........what was his theory? (Mark Stapleton)

He was having an each way bet on the CIA or Mafia.

BTW, the dinner party assassination discussion came to a screeching halt when the hostess asked who Lee Harvey Oswald was. After a moment of stunned silence, she directed the conversation back to Brad and Angelina.

James

James,

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

For those interested, last Sunday (Feb 19), the ABC quiz shoe "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/

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.

I think that Einstein would have fingered Bobby indirectly, by saying that relatives were involved.

Ron,

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

David Gilbert, from Sydney won the contest and answered 14 of 15 questions correctly. Some were easy, some a bit harder.

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.

Thanks for the heads up, Mark.

It does amaze me how many Aussies seem to be into the assassination of John Kennedy. I was at a dinner party recently where one of the guests, a local Motorola sales Rep, was a very keen student of the case. He passed the comment that a lifetime of research into the assassination is barely enough. I had to agree with him.

James

And the burning question is........what was his theory?

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?

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/

Mark,

What makes you so sure that Cohen's book is 100% accurate and thus when the other two books contradict it they must be wrong?

You quote Piper's book what was his source?

All - see my post on Tim's "Book" thread that undermines Piper's thesis and I think raises some interesting questions.

Len

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.

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.

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.

Tim,

The sale of the Hawk missiles was tied to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem. In mid-August 1962, JFK sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft the deal*--why didn't Mr. Bass mention this?

Then, according to the fawning reviewer, Bass attributes no role in the sale to the Jewish Lobby! You must be joking. In fact, the Jewish Lobby is "overated" and the author devotes an entire section to this, entitled "Overated Jewish Lobby"! I give the author credit for a keen sense of humor.

Are you going to drown us with this stuff?

*From "Israel and the Bomb"--Avner Cohen, Columbia University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-231-10483-9: The conversation between Ben-Gurion and Feldman is recorded in an outgoing Foreign Ministry cable to the embassy in Washington, dated 20 August 1962 (ISA, FMRG 3377/7. Also, Myer Feldman interview by author 10 June 1992, 14 October 1994 and 14 July 1997.

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.

,

Here in Australia we have a game called "cricket" (England tries to play it too, sorry John and Steve).

Hey Stapleton, consider this your first and only warning

"Final judgement" After 300 plus replies this is turning out to be a longer judgement than the McLibel trial.

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

Mark S wrote:

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

How laughable. Mark S believes that Israel, who was one of America's best friends, killed Kennedy while he dismisses as "rubbish" the scenario that Castro, the sworn enemy of both the US and JFK (who called JFK such things as a "cretin" and "American's version of Batista"), and whom the US was itself trying to kill, killed Kennedy to prevent his own assassination.

He's hardly alone in dismissing as "rubbish" your raison d'etre. Your fan club of one seems to have limped back to his trailer park.

However, as per your other contention - "Mark S. believes that Israel... killed Kennedy" - you've oversimplified something into farce, yet again, knowingly, deliberately, and - as ever - falsely.

If somebody says they think Douglas Dillon is not above suspicion, you get your knickers in a knot and demand to know the proof for so preposterous a notion. How dare anyone make such charges?

In this case, you've rejected the hypothesis of "FJ," and assailed any and all comers. [One notes that you have not posted anything indicating that you've actually read the book - "It has been a while since I scanned the book" - which puts you rather at odds with your own eternal advice to others.]

You've previously stated repeatedly that you're absolutely convinced that OC played a major role in the assassination. But your depiction of OC is strictly Italian apparently: the only names you mention end in a vowel. No room in your OC for Rothman, Lansky, Siegel, Cohen, et al, despite their well-documented prominence within OC.

When I avoided this thread, you "inferred" that my absence meant I agreed with the book, and perhaps by using guilt by association you could depict me as a leperous anti-Semite of MCP's ilk. That was a real nifty piece of deduction on your part, Sherlock, and I just hope you're rightly proud of trading in such gratuitous slurs, based on nothing but your own imagination.

You must be, because you're back at it again, this time with Mark S. Remedial reading time for you, Timmy Boy. What was Mark's very first post? "I haven't read it but I've read several reviews including the link which James posted. While I don't agree with Piper's theory that Israel masterminded the assassination, the idea that they played a role can't be discounted."

So what do we have: Tim, who hasn't read a book based on an a priori dismissal of its premise, assailing Mark because - although he hasn't read the same book, and though he's already stated he doesn't agree with its central premise - won't dismiss the possibility of some involvement. In order to do so, Tim wrongly asserts what Mark "believes" - despite having every reason to know better - and thereby uses to the broad anti-Semite brush against our esteemed Australian contributor too.

This is the self-same Tim Gratz who admonishes others to keep their mouths shut about books they have not read, but now pontificates about a book that he hasn't read. This is the self-same Tim Gratz who assails others for making baseless ad hominem attacks, yet feels no compunction about baselessly tossing about epithets like "anti-Semite" and implying the worst about others, including - in my case - somebody who hadn't written a word on the topic. [While I don't support the book's central premise either, I at least read the book before reaching that conclusion.]

Mark, I know you live "down under". Are you possibly standing on your head down there?

This, from the same Tim Gratz who infers an "anti-American" bias from "foreigners." Can't imagine why anybody'd be biased against a polite young man such as yourself, Tim. Your manners and etiquette are just so fetching.

Having brought the foregoing to Forum members' attention, can I now expect to read a post about how I "bait" you?

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.

From the article:

Among the 50 withdrawn documents that Mr. Aid found in his own files is a 1948 memorandum on a C.I.A. scheme to float balloons over countries behind the Iron Curtain and drop propaganda leaflets. It was reclassified in 2001 even though it had been published by the State Department in 1996.

But what if our enemies could peruse the documents and discover such schemes and use them against us? That is one of the reason why many of these decades old programs must remain classified! It is just typical of the Clinton Administration to risk the security of our nation by declassifying such documents!

Can you imagine some terrorist organization using balloons to drop their propaganda perhaps even into our children's playgrounds?

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?

Gerry Hemming has reminded me that his primary contact for access to the Kennedy White House was a New York financier named Theodore Racoosin who was very close to the Kennedys. Racoosin was known as one of the five founders of the State of Israel.

There is a professional "chair" named for Racoosin at the respected Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovet, Israel.

There is also a Theodore Racoosin Chair of Talmud and Rabbincs at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

New York University has a program of Theodore Racoosin scholars.

Clearly Mr. Racoosin was a remarkable man.

Does it make any sense whatsoever that Israel would kill a President who was so closely affiliated with one of its founders? Of course not.

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.

I gather, Mark, that you have read the book.

Please correct me if I am wrong that you would not have the temerity to challenge a book written by a mid-east scholar, that you have not even read!

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".