Mark Stapleton

Mark, Thanks for the invitation to post on the Piper book, and also thank you to John Simkin for the initial post. I had simply sent John, Debra Conway, and Larry Hancock a question about the book in what I thought was a private email. I have not read Piper's book yet so I have no idea whether it is well researched or presented with or without an anti-semitic slant. I was amused at the strong opposition to Piper's thesis by researchers here that had not read Piper's book. Someone got enough to comment by "skimming" the material. Apparently 30,000 readers have purchased the book and any book that is that hard to obtain, (can't be found in any San Diego Library, nor ordered from main stream book stores) I want to know what he has to say. I respect the large reservoir of knowledge on this forum and was frustrated that I could not find any comments about it here. I know a few of you have read Piper's Final Judgement and appreciated the informed skeptical comments prior to getting my hands on my Sixth edition released in 2005. I joined your forum after seeing Oliver Stone's movie again on late night TV early last year, and was curious if anyone had solved the initial crime of the 20th century and then I got obsessed with discoverieng the mystery of the murder of 3,000 people in NYC on 9/11/01. When my research revealed that 9/11 was NOT caused by Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arab cave dwellers with laptops in Afghanistan, it became clear to me that a cabal in the United States murdered our fellow citizens for very sinister and gready reasons... war against arabs in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and now possibly Iran, and obscene war profits for the same KBR favored by LBJ in 1964. 9/11 was a military operation very similar to JFK's assassination including the patsies of Bin Laden and Oswald. It seems very plausible to me that Mossad/Israel have method, motive, and opportunity in both crimes. Even more likely with the controlled press and CIA propaganda in Operation Mockingbird in the 1960's and now the five corporate owners of all news media and the Zionist/Neoconservatives controlling our current government. Very ominous times when compared to 1963. Israel did not have nuclear weapons in 1963 and the fact that JFK was opposed to allowing a nuclear power in the Middle East powder keg oviously angered Ben Gurion's nationalist desire to defend his country from overwhelming odds in an arab world. Now Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear bombs and the ability to deliver them, and they may get their chance in Iran... very soon. JFK was right to oppose Israel's nuclear ambitions and apparently LBJ was not concerned. Before Piper's book, my primary suspect for JFK's death was LBJ, now it appears that it may have been Israeli protaganists. Thanks for all your well informed input, I will have more to say after reading Piper's book. Perhaps John Simpkin could invite Michael C. Piper to defend his thesis in this forum against his critics here that have not read the book... yet. I have enjoyed reading the comments other authors here, like Jim Marrs and Larry Hancock and many others. What do you say, John? Jeff D. http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf Jeff, Thanks for that interesting post. Forget about Tim. I see he's already labelling you an anti-Semite. Tim's problem is that he should have been born 500 years ago. He's a great loss to the Spanish Inquisition. If he ever points his accusatory finger at me and says I'm anti-Semitic, I'll bite it clean off. On the 9/11 thing, I haven't really kept up with the latest theorising. All I know is that the perpetrators were Saudis--ostensibly an ally of the US--and that Bush, Rumsfeld etc have strong business ties to that nation. I can't see Israel having a motive for such a thing. The JFK mystery is basically the main issue for me. I haven't read Piper's book but I've skimmed it on the net like others have. The fact that it's banned in the US is a disturbing fact and makes me wonder just who is running the show in America. I'm keen to hear your views after you read it, especially the details of his theory about how it was contracted out to Bloomfield. I'm not sure if that scenario is realistic but frankly, I wouldn't really know. I suspect that what we know about this and many other issues concerning the power elites that run nations and corporations is only the tip of the iceberg, dwarfed by what lies beneath the waterline. I recall you posted last year about the possibility aerial photos of DP had been taken in preparation for November 22. Have you heard any more on this and what was your source? On the issue of Israel and the bomb, I think Ben-Gurion was right and JFK was wrong. Israel, like any other country, has a right to plan its own national security policies without interference. Especially true in Israel's case. JFK was opposed to any proliferation and, unlike his successors, was totally impartial in the application of this policy. It was this impartiality which may have got him assassinated, IMO. Just a suspicion--a strong suspicion. Subsequent Presidents have supported non-proliferation in the Middle East--but have allowed Israel to be the exception. America can't seriously be surprised at the antipathy towards them shown by Arab states who support Palestine, especially given the other documented examples of Palestinian suffering. Point is, there's no proof that acquiring nuclear weapons leads to nuclear war. India and Pakistan, after years of skirmishes and threats over Kashmir, now seem to be acting like buddies. Both know the other one can blow them away.

Wow. Your hysterical over-reaction on this issue rivals your infamous performance in regard to Douglas Dillon's name being mentioned. Are you afraid that something may be uncovered? You see, the thing that amuses me (and, I assume, some Forum members) is that, assuming you are right and Israel had no involvement, then why not just sit back and allow people who believe there may be something in this issue to make a fool of themselves? Then you can drop by later and say, "I told you so". Why the frantic urgency to censor debate? Your bizarre comment that it is morally wrong to suggest Israel's possible involvement is one of the stupidest comments I've ever read from you--and you've posted hundreds of stupid comments. Why is it "morally wrong" to suggest Israel and not "morally wrong" to suggest the United States, the Soviet Union, Cuba, the CIA, KGB, the Secret Service, the DPD, LBJ, Marcello, Lansky, Trafficante, Hunt, Nixon, Hoover, Hughes, Dulles, Walker, Willoughby, the Joint Chiefs, the Suite 8F group or any one of a hundred other suspects? Get a grip, man. And my point about the Cohen book is "useless"? You haven't even read the book. You spent much time berating others for being insufficiently read then condemn a very scholarly work as useless without even reading a word. The cover of Avner Cohen's book displays the following endorsement: "Cohen's book will necessitate the rewriting of Israel's entire history"--Tom Segev, Ha'aretz. Are you now claiming Segev is an anti-Semite and Ha'aretz an anti-Semitic publication? You've really lost it here, Tim. You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I've been trying for five minutes but I can't make out a Coke bottle--or any bottle. My eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be.

Ah Tim, this is really getting silly. First, no-one's saying that Israel "did it". In an earlier post I agreed with Ron that Israel couldn't possibly have "done it" by themselves. The speculation here is one of possible Israeli Government involvement. Surely you understand the difference between suggesting that they "did it" and suggesting they might have been "involved". The former implies sole responsibility and the latter implies joint responsibility. Please use more care when inferring what others are suggesting. You also used this inflammatory ploy when it was suggested by Forum members that Douglas Dillon warranted some focus. Nobody ever suggested Douglas Dillon "did it" but you started a thread with the title, "Did Dillon do it". As for your argument that posting on the Forum without proof accomplishes nothing, well, what can I say? If this was a Forum requirement then we wouldn't be corresponding because most of your posts would have been deleted and I wouldn't know who you were. Tim who? In relation to your request that members cease speculation of this kind as it may sully the reputation of one of America's staunchest allies, I have to ask you a question or two: Is this a Forum examining a major historical event or an exercise in US foreign policy? There are Forum members from countries worldwide who may not consider Israel a staunch ally. Should their opinions be modified to cater for US foreign policy interests? Does the US Government own this Forum? I'm just posting what I think is worth considering from all the material I've seen and read regarding JFK's assassination. I'm not going to suggest theories I don't believe are true--like Castro did it. I think there's a significant possibility that the Israeli Government played a role in the assassination. Others agree with me. Cohen's book reinforces my suspicions. Don't infer I'm saying anything other than that.

David, Sorry to intrude, but that point about your Dad knowing JFK is interesting. Did you ever get to meet JFK when you were a kid ?

Well, it looks like you're wrong Len. The George article exists. Dawn just posted it. BTW Jeff, are you going to offer your opinions? I see you've been reading the thread. It's really your thread, after all.

The expession "CIA renegades" or "renegade intelligence" always sets off alarm bells for me and I prepare for the tsunami of disinformation which often follows that expression. It was a favorite term of LBJ when the CIA was his "suspect of the month", leaving me with a lifelong skepticism of that expression.

Hi Lee, Interesting material, to be sure. I haven't seen "Air America" but for sheer laughs, I like "Team America". It would be interesting to know what those actors who were portrayed by Parker and Stone's puppets thought of this outrageously funny parody--especially Alec Baldwin ("Arek Borwin", as Kim Jong Il would say). "Without an actor they were like pigs to the slaughter". Hope Parker and Stone do a sequel. The stuff about Ruby and heroin smuggling leads one to think about possible connections which could exist between the underworld, intelligence agencies and Governments in general. There's probably many intricate networks of connections the public doesn't know about. It's not unreasonable to assume that disparate powerful groups, including Governments, form co-operative alliances which serve their mutual benefit. The evidence suggests the existence of such connections, which operate outside the public's knowledge and understanding. I've read Chamish's review of Piper's book and agree with most of it. I disagree with his last paragraph about America corrupting Israel but if I was an Israeli, I would probably think the same way as him.

Why do you think US troops are going to be removed? The whole point of the Iraq invasion was, to quote the PNAC, to have "a military presence in the Gulf region." The US government now has that, and I'm sure it is not about to give it up after all that it has perpetrated to acquire it. FWIW, I think the troops will have to leave (the cities not the bases). Domestic pressure will force the issue within the next year-just a hunch. The hollow rhetoric from Bush and Rumsfeld is looking ridiculous when put up alongside the casualty lists. Is that woman still following Bush around? I like her style.

Lee, Lotta stuff in that post. I agree that its necessary to focus on all possibilities and this business about observing political correctness and not making statements which offend certain groups is just crap which obstructs the research. Lansky's interesting, too. He had a lot more power and influence than many realise. According to Luciano (and not publicly refuted as far as I know), he, Lansky and Costello helped deliver the Democratic nomination to FDR over Al Smith way back in 1932 so Lansky's influence could have reached almost anywhere, IMO. The idea that Louis Bloomfield was contracted to mastermind the assassination is a possibility, IMO. Montreal seems to bob up a bit. Garrison relates the story of Jules Rocco Kimble, who travelled with Ferrie and Shaw in a Cessna to Nashville, Louisville, Toronto and Montreal. When Ferrie landed in Montreal, Shaw disappeared and Ferrie and Kimble stayed overnight in a Montreal hotel. Next day Shaw turns up with a "Cuban or Mexican" for the return trip to N.O. Very odd. As for Vanunu, I wish he would elaborate but I doubt he will ever be permitted to speak freely.

Ron, You're right, Ron. There's no way Israel could have carried out the assassination by themselves and there were so many others out to get JFK that Israel's non-involvement is a distinct possibility. The reason I think they might have been an active participant is because of LBJ. He's the only one I'm certain was involved. He had close ties to Israel, reversed JFK's hard line on nuclear inspections, sold arms to them unconditionally and covered up the USS Liberty scandal. To me it has the smell of payment for services rendered. It just seems to fit, however I wouldn't be surprised if I was totally wrong. This case has so many bizarre and confusing tentacles, nothing surprises me now.

John, Bernice et al, Interesting posts. I'd like to read Rowley's article in the November '63 Readers Digest--withdrawn issue. Does anyone own a copy? I reckon it would fetch a tidy sum on E-Bay.

What a strange post. Are you saying that if a researcher believes the Israeli Govt/IDF/Mossad may have been involved, then that reseacher shouldn't proceed because it might offend someone--in this case Israel? If focussing on Mossad offends Israel then what about the focus on the CIA, KGB etc? Maybe we should call off the entire assassination debate because too many people might get offended. Or are you saying Israel should be declared a suspicion-free zone? Anyway, you sound like you only want the assassins revealed if they fall within an acceptable list of suspects. If that's right then why are you participating in the Forum? Also, you say that all that exists is motive. How do you know they didn't possess means and opportunity? Israel is a small country outnumbered by hostile neighbours, some very large, but has survived in relative prosperity for over fifty years. It's the only Middle Eastern country to have developed nuclear weapons and has arguably the best intelligence agency in the world. It also has powerful allies in America. It's got means. As for opportunity, I would think that the impressive array of powerful groups and individuals who also wanted JFK gone would be united in this urgent cause, and would arrange to give them that opportunity--if they thought they could do it. You've got to look at this thing from Ben-Gurion's perspective. He proclaimed the State of Israel in 1948. He knew the geopolitical realities of Israel, which made him obsessed with its security. Six years into his plan for the ultimate deterrent and only a year or two from achieving nuclear status and after a couple of sham inspections in "61 and "62, suddenly this pain in the ass gets serious. JFK sends nasty letters warning of dire consequences and backs it up with issuing NSAM 231, telling the State Department and Foreign Office to get it done. Kennedy was worried that any flexibilty in his non-proliferation rhetoric might harm his chances in the upcoming discussions with the Soviets about nuclear test bans and arms control but underestimated what the nuclear project meant to Israel and Ben-Gurion in particular. Ben-Gurion spent 13 years as chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, the governing body of the Jewish community in Palestine, before founding the nation himself. In 1963 the biggest threat to his country's security is now Kennedy, not the Arabs. He resigns obviously knowing that many American domestic interests also want Kennedy gone, so what will he do? IMO, he'll lend them a hand. Ben-Gurion's resignation from the Knesset doesn't mean he slips into insignificance. He's the founding father of Israel and still strongly influences Israel's security decisions.

Ron, What I'm concerned with is the way the ground rules for the entire gamit of security negotiations changed after JFK was assassinated. Suddenly it was Israel calling the shots. Kennedy was resolute in his determination to halt Israel's nuclear advance, fearing widespread escalation in the Middle East. In March 1963, he asked Bundy to issue a Presidential directive to Rusk, requesting him to look for "some form of international or bilateral US safeguards"(p.118). The request was the origin of NSAM 231, "Middle Eastern Nuclear Capabilities": The President desires, as a matter of urgency, that we undertake every feasible measure to improve our intelligence on the Israeli nuclear program as well as other Israel and UAR advanced weapon programs to arrive at a firmer evaluation of their import. In this connection he wishes the next formal inspection of the Israeli reactor complex to be undertaken promptly and to be as thourough as possible. In view of his great concern over the destabilising impact of any Israeli or UAR program towards nuclear weapons, the President also wishes the Department of State to develop proposals forestalling such programs, in particular we should develop plans for seeking clearer assurances from the Governments concerned on this point, and means of impressing upon them how seriously such a development would be regarded in this country. There's no ambiguity about this decree, as it specifically mentions formal inspections of Israel's facility. To say Ben Gurion was alarmed is an understatement. JFK never got the thourough inspections he wanted. Instead, Ben Gurion stalled. In April 1963 Egypt, Syria and Iraq signed an Arab Federation Proclamation, calling for the liberation of Palestine. On April 25, Ben Gurion wrote a seven page letter to Kennedy warning of this development, comparing the liberation of Palestine to the Holocaust and calling for a joint US-Soviet declaration to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of all Middle Eastern states (p.120). According to Cohen, Ben Gurion's campaign upset many of the senior staff at the Foreign Ministry. The substance and tone seemed exaggerated, or in senior diplomat Gideon Rafael's words "hysterical". Washington also viewed it as an over-reaction and didn't see the April 17 proclamation as an immediate threat to Israel. JFK just turned up the heat. IMO, Israel and the US were on a collision course in relation to Dimona. Ben Gurion resigned in June and his successor, Levi Eshkol, continued the obfuscation in relation to Dimona. After November 22, everything changes. On December 5, Israel informs the US it may undertake an inspection of Dimona in mid-January but the ground rules were set out by Israel. Cohen states on p.188, "The Israelis managed to limit the visits to one day, run by a single team of no more than three AEC scientists. They insisited the visits always be conducted on Saturdays (the Jewish sabbath) or other national holidays when almost all the Dimona employees were gone and it was easier to control the visit. The team was always closely escorted by its Israeli hosts. The team asked to bring its own measuring instruments (such as radiation measuring instruments) but the Israelis denied their request. It was also not permitted to collect samples of any kind for later analysis". Inspection teams claimed the one day format was insufficient for conducting even a modest inspection and that more backup data was required but were told these were the Israeli ground rules and they could not be altered without jeopardizing the entire arrangement. Cohen continues, "equally significant was the Israeli control of the visits' frequency. Fuel from the Dimona reactor could be discharged every six months or less, and subsequently reprocessed to extract plutonium of weapons grade quality. This was the reason for Kennedy's insistence on semiannual visits. The US Government also pressed this issue with Israel on numerous occasions, but never prevailed." After JFK's assassination, the Johnson administration participated in the charade of nuclear inspections and also conducted large scale sales of tanks, Skyhawk jets and Hawk surface-to-surface missiles to Israel and merely paid lip service to JFK's initial insistence that any sale of arms be connected to comprehensive inspections of the Dimona facility. I can't help being suspicious in light of the fact that JFK's death was a huge obstacle removed on Israel's road to military self sufficiency.

Tim, No, I was referring to Avner Cohen's book, "Israel and the bomb" which I mentioned in a preceeding post. Well worth reading. I'll start a separate thread on it later.

Tim, There's no hysteria in Cohen's book. You should read it and become more informed about the history of Israel's development of nuclear technology before dismissing the possibility of Israeli Government involvement in removing obstacles blocking its path.

I'll vouch for the "Australia 1975" reference. I know for a fact that the Americans were mad as hell that PM Gough Whitlam tried to arrange a loan for Australia through Tirath Khemlani.

John, I read somewhere, possibly from Vince Palamara, that Bolden was intending to write a book about his experiences. Do you know anything about this?

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. The full story of Israel's emergence as a nuclear power is told in Avner Cohen's "Israel and the bomb" (1998, Columbia University Press). I highly recommend this book. Of particular interest to me was the manner in which the relationship between the US and Israeli Governments changed abruptly in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, vis-a-vis weapon sales and nuclear inspections. Interesting indeed.

John, Very interesting article. The more information that comes to light about LBJ, the worse he looks. There's more than one skeleton in his closet. It's looking more like an entire cemetary. It appears that he had a unique talent for surrounding himself with very powerful people and the whole LBJ group--Texas oil men, corrupt officials, media allies, business leaders--acted with a unity of purpose which intimidated others into acceptance and acquiescence. It was quite a bizarre period in American political history, IMO. If Curington's story is true, there's no doubt Hunt strongly influenced Ruby to murder LHO. If so, Hunt's role in the assassination seems a stronger possibility, although the actual assassination and the silencing of individuals with dangerous knowledge might have been two entirely separate operations. Just speculating.

Tim, I'm keen to reply to your dismissal of my post concerning America's recent trend of incarcerating more than a million people for non-violent crimes but in the interests of continuity, I will wait till you have replied to Stephen's interesting question. I'm keen to read your reply.

Hardly convincing, Tim. If you want to talk about prisoners you must acknowledge the shortcomings in the American system. Cuba doesn't claim to be a democracy, whereas America boasts it is the land of the free. But is it? America's current prison population is well over 2 million. It has a prison population rate of 700 per 100,000 citizens, easily the highest in the western world. By contrast, Britain's is 159 per 100,000 and Norway's is 60. Half of the inmates are in prison for non-violent crimes. Longer sentencing due to programs such as the "3 strikes" policy, still active in some states, is one of the main reasons for this and results in sentences of up to 25 years for minor crimes such as shoplifting and cannabis use. In some states prison building is the main growth sector of the construction industry. Disturbingly, some new prisons are being built to include a factory wing where prisoners are being employed at slave labor rates to produce goods. Some states aggressively market this cheap labor force to local corporations in a bid to stimulate depressed local economies, the Governor of Montana being a recent example. Prisoners who have spoken out about this have recieved punishment from authorities such as solitary confinement. A lawsuit filed on behalf of prisoners in California a few years back is one example of this (see link). http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3291 While America's prison population can't be compared with that of China--human rights groups estimate China's prison population may be as high as 20 million--it is easily the harshest punishment regime in the western world and lags behind other western nations in all major indicators such as execution rates and length of sentencing. Naturally, the huge numbers of poor and disadvataged people in the US make up the bulk of the prison population. Lawyers cost money, you know. So, on the issue of crime and punishment, the US occupies a kind of "middle ground" located between harsh dictatorships and civilised democracies. One law for the rich and one law for the poor is starkly apparent. Those hordes of Cubans fleeing the oppression of Cuba for the democratic nirvana of America, whom you regularly refer to, probably don't know what they're getting into.

Extremely witty, Tim--nice retort. I assume you mean energy policy, but anyway I happen to know that GWB doesn't take advice from ordinary, common, garden variety right wing fanatics such as your good self. No sir, he has his own special, homegrown RW fanatics giving him sage advice. These ones have a hotline to the man upstairs so if GWB stuffs up he has an infallible excuse, "It was the will of Gaaarrd".

____________________________________________ Mark, FWIW, I agree with you. --Thomas ____________________________________________ Thomas, Thanks. At least I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I think the research community spends too much energy flogging horses that are well and truly dead and insufficient time pursuing aspects of the case which, in my opinion, have much greater promise. Of course, I'm working on the assumption that the research community wants to discover who was actually responsible for the assassination.

Did I read that right? Angleton was in the pilot car? Anyway, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Carter was manning communications in the car behind LBJ's in order to keep LBJ apprised of developments.....and we know what kind of developments, don't we? Wasn't LBJ seen talking into a communications device? Palamara's work on the motorcade/SS, despite the apparent conspiracy of fear and silence is really important stuff, IMO. Agents like Floyd Boring and Emory Roberts hardly rate a blip on the research radar, although their actions were extremely suspicious, IMO. Roberts, while working with LBJ as "records secretary", dies suddenly in the late 60's--no other details about this can be found. What the hell is going on here? Also, agent Stu Stout was out of the loop, waiting at the Trade Mart, and according to Palamara, most upset about what happened. Then he dies suddenly in late '63 or early '64. So, how? Under what circumstances? Is that all we get? Whitmeyer's unsheduled appearance in the pilot car has also never been explained. Just because they're called the Secret Service doesn't mean every detail of their actions and seemingly mysterious deaths should be kept a secret. This is material which is much more promising than endless arguments over whether the Z film was faked or the activities of amorphous anti-Castro groups. Am I the only one who believes this?