Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
Mark Stapleton wrote:
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".
More claptrap.
When Mark talks about "sole responsibility" versus "joint responsibility" that is a distinction without a difference. Why make it?
If two people get together and conspire to murder someone, and both shoot at him, even if one misses, both are both legally and morally responsible for the murder. Similarly if one person buys the gun and ammunition and the other does the deed. Use any scenario you want. If two people jointly murder someone, they are as responsible (as they should be) as one person acting alone.
It does not take a legal scholar or a moral ethicist to figure that one out. It is a no-brainer.
Clearly--CLEARLY-one casts as much scorn and moral approbation on Israel if one implies that Israel conspired with another party to kill Kennedy as one would if one claimed Israel by itself orchestrated the assassination.
Can we agree on that much Mark?
Mark, I suspect that few sane people would give a rodent's derriere about your suspicion that Israel participated in the assassination. Nevertheless, I repeat my point that I believe it is morally wrong to posit Israel as a Kennedy killer without anything more than your totally unfounded suspicion.
And let us face it: the only people who have published books or articles on the "Israel did it" scenario are anti-semites who deny that the Holocaust ever existed and advance similar wacky theories. As I recall one such person was even banned from this forum.
Your point about the Cohen book is useless. All that book implies is that Israel had a motive to prefer a different American President than JFK. Motive alone is insufficient to tar someone or some state as a suspect.
The Collins Piper book is nothing but Collins Piper's sophisticated effort to advance his anti-semitic agenda. It contains no evidence whatsoever to link Israel to the assassination.
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.
-
Mark wrote:
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.
IMO, there is no way you are ever going to prove that Israel did it. You think there are unreleased documents that show that? If so, I have this big old bridge in New York City for sale. . .
Since you can never prove that Israel did it, to argue and posit that it might have accomplishes nothing but sullying the reputation of one of America's staunchest allies.
I mean I think I could make as good a case that Jackie did it (or Onassis) as you can that Israel did (since all either of us have are "MMO"). As you know, Jackie spent time on Onsassis' yacht shortly before the assassination and several years later she married him. Am I seriously suggesting that she did it? Of course not. Would I be offended and reply if someone claimed she had? Yes, because, again, why engage in useless speculation that only hurts the reputation of a country or a person? What does it accomplish?
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.
-
I'm David Healy ... I don't prefer the nickname Dave. Born: Boston Mass., 1945.
Studied Film/Television/Radio at College of San Mateo - San Francisco State University and University of California (Continuing Education Credits).
USArmy 1962-65 - honorably discharged, stationed Saigon; MAAG-Vietnam Feb '63 thru Feb '64.
My father knew JFK - was a Boston labor union leader - delivered many union votes for Kennedy, during his early political career.
Began professional TV career in the number 5 ADI market in the United States: San Francisco-Oakland Bay area shot TV news utilizing CP-16 Mag film cameras. US Television Netowrks (National and O&O's). FCC Commercial Broadcast Radio-telephone licensed. TV Station Technical Director; on-air operations, 16-35mm tele-cine, plum-i-con/sat-i-con broadcast cameras [studio, location EFP remote Pro sports units w/satellite uplink operation.
Ampex and Sony certified (2" - 1" - 3/4" and various 1/2" analog, present day 1/2" and 1/4" digital - formats) same videotape tape broadcast recorders...
Maufacturer fieldtest[ed] multiple commercial film/video cameras...
Nominated and won various industry awards for broadcast/corporate media production, animation-compositing and post production technical excellence...
Work worldwide doing numerous television and film productions. I live in the United States, consult many Silicon Valley high-tech companies --
Split residence Reno-Tahoe and Las Vegas, Nv. area
I have NOT videotaped GG Allin tours, I have worked on multiple '60's-'70's and 80's Bill Graham Productions -and- I've spent a few nights in a Holiday Inn....?
I've been a member of the Education forum for a while...
Professional resume, available on request
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.
-
Matthew Smith has a book out, Conspiracy: The Plot to Stop the Kennedys (NY: Citadel Press, 2005), which I assume tracks well with the documentary. I've leafed through it but haven't read it all yet. The book blames the destruction of the Kennedys on "CIA renegades" and "others, money rich and power hungry."
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.
-
Ron,
Mark,
Thanks and agreed.
Page 40 of 'The Politics of Heroin' essentially states that Lansky was in charge of Luciano's heroin syndicate. He supervised smuggling operations [TRAFFICKING which is key to anyone's understanding of the assassination IMO - whether it be 'shylocking girls,' Jeeps, Tractors, Weapons, Narcotics, etc.'] he negotiated with Corsican heroin manufacturers, and his relationship to the Trafficante family was through Havana Cuba. Lansky owned most of the casinos, and the Trafficante family served as the resident managers. Cuba, as per the FBN, was made the center of all international narcotics operations.
So what we've got here, in a nutshell, is Jewish Maffia, working with Italian Maffia, connections to the Corsicans, and Cuba. Nice little package. The book [as well as the PBS program I saw] does a nice job of demonstrating the relationship - at multiple levels and geographical areas of the world, between US Intelligence and the Maffia - even the Corsican maffia as far back as 1947.
An aside - Air America was a great film, even if it failed to entirely deal with the subject matter. The opening scene had me in tears of laughter. Another one which I have raised before, Day of the Jackal. Interesting parallels.
Plenty to think about in Piper & Weans work, as well as Steve Rivel - for example, Jack Ruby, using one of his ex-Dancers, Melba Christine Marcades, Patsy Sue Allen, Christine Youngblood, Melba Christine Youngblood, Melba Christine Youngblood Rodman, Rose Cheramie - to deliver several kilo's of Heroin as payment to some of the Corsican shooters contracted, brought up from Miami. Intelligence making use of Maffia fronted cut-outs to bring in French shooters through Canada...etc.
A different perspective here, but note that much is not written off....
http://www.konformist.com/jfkland/f-judgement.htm
A ZIONIST LOOKS AT FINAL JUDGEMENTBarry Chamish
Final Judgement by Michael Collins Piper has been ignored or viciously attacked by American Jewish organizations and media. No shock there since Piper makes a pretty cogent case for the Mossad being the moving force behind the assassination of JFK. I will attempt to redress this imbalance and offer a review of the book as a Zionist committed to the strength and survival of Israel.
To summarize early, Piper gets lots right and lots wrong. What is bothersome is it doesn't take much of what he gets right to make a case for Israeli involvement in the murder. Piper's central point, and it is a major revelation, is that Clay Shaw, Oswald's handler was on the board of a Geneva-based trade promotion company called Permindex, which I accept was a Mossad front for covert operations.
From this point Piper works backwards and connects Clay to the Mossad, the Mossad to Lansky and organized crime, Lansky to the CIA, the CIA to heroin production in South-East Asia, the heroin producers to the heroin processors of Marseilles, the processors to the OAS, the rebellious French intelligence outfit determined to assassinate Degaulle for pulling out of Algeria, the OAS to the Mossad and now we've come full circle.
Kennedy infuriated Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion by demanding an end to Israel's nuclear program. He equally infuriated organized crime by promising to end American involvement in Viet Nam, and thus cutting off its major source of raw opium. Even though he frightened many in the CIA with his declarations that the organization had to be replaced, and by his refusal to bring down Castro, that was not a prime motive in the assassination. The CIA was involved because its top gun James Angleton was an Israeli agent. His duty was to prepare the patsy and plant "false flags" in the Cuban exile community. In fact, even the alleged involvement of Italian mafia leaders was a deliberate false flag as well. The real killers were OAS-employed Corsican hitmen, or at least one was for certain, and they were recruited by the Mossad's European chief assassin, Yitzhak Shamir.
I would dismiss the whole thing as a fantastic yarn, except four years ago I began researching the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, and I independently discovered too many facts in common with Piper's. The most uncanny is that I also conclude that French intelligence provided the operational guidance behind Rabin's murder.
I don't intend to retell Final Judgement. The following points are aimed at people who have already read Piper's book.
* I was already familiar with the Permindex story, having read Larouche literature. I'm not happy that he adopts the findings of a pro-Aryan organization whose primary purpose in life seems to be to destroy the British royal family. The fact that Piper is employed by the Liberty Lobby and their outlet, Spotlight, is not really thrilling to me either. Even less exciting are his quotes from Jewish traitors like Ostrovsky and Lilienthal. And now I will elaborate.
There is a superficial similarity between me and Victor Ostrovsky in that we both are exposing the misdeeds of Israeli intelligence agencies. The difference, and it is telling, is that he ran away to Canada to tell his tale, while I live and raise my family in Israel. His motives are highly suspect, mine are honest: I want my friends, family, and especially my children, to live in a better Israel for all ages.
That said, about half of Piper's sources are Jewish, and other than Gerald Posner, they are mostly respected assassination researchers. He is not at all reluctant to cite as an inspiration the Jewish investigator/attorney Mark Lane, and in fact Lane was not at all reluctant to represent Spotlight in a well publicized legal action against the CIA. All in all, Piper doesn't sound like an anti-semite and I can spot one. I believe he is a sincere truthseeker.
* The main difference between my research and his is I found the evidence to prove my case for Israeli secret service involvement in the Rabin murder. I gathered hundreds of pages of hospital, court and police records, combined them with indisputable first hand testimony and put together an airtight case. Piper does not succeed nearly as well. His argument, though deft IS all circumstantial. The weight of his circumstantial evidence is impressive but it is far from conclusive.
* Piper does not have a handle on the personal dynamics of Israeli politics. For example, he writes off Menachem Begin as a "terrorist." Wrong. He was a freedom fighter in the truest sense of the word and probably the only honorable person to serve as Israel's prime minister. He somehow ties him into the plot because he had ties with gangster Mickey Cohen. Heck, everyone in Israel knows about these ties. Back in the late 40s when no one else would arm us, the gangsters used their muscle to save our fledgling state. So what?
But Piper intimates that just by knowing Cohen, Begin was in on the plot. That is out of the question. In 1948, Ben Gurion ordered Yitzhak Rabin to murder Begin on a ship called the Altalena. Begin would never have cooperated with Ben Gurion on a Hannuka party, let alone in the murder of an American president.
Ditto, Shamir. In the mid-1940s, Ben Gurion rounded up Shamir and his militia for the British and had them sent to incarceration camps in Central Africa. Admittedly, Shamir did work for the Mossad during Ben Gurion's regimes, but their personal ties were strained, to say the least. While Begin would never have cooperated with Ben Gurion in a presidential hit, it is almost as unlikely that Shamir would have. A better candidate would be Shimon Peres, Ben Gurion's close aide and the man who started the Israeli nuclear program with French collusion. He is suspect number one in the Rabin assassination.
* Piper mentions the well-known fact that Jack Ruby met with "Israeli journalists" at the Dallas police station the night before he finished off Oswald. Possibly enforcing Piper's claims, many of my correspondents have pointed out to me that in Leah Rabin's biography, she notes that her husband Yitzhak was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. And Rabin, himself, admitted that he was in Cambodia the next year inspecting an Israeli "experimental farm." Yes, Rabin could have been one of the "journalists" and yes, the farm could have been growing poppies.
That Rabin was up to his ears in drug running is illustrated during his tenure as Shimon Peres's Defence Minister from 1984-86. This was the era of Iran Contra and Israel was involved in selling arms to Iran to free American hostages. And the money was used to buy cocaine in Latin America, ship it to the US, use the profits to purchase arms and funnel these to the Contras.
Like Piper, Poindexter and North tried to shift the blame for the operation to Israel. Now being logical, Israel had its interests in the scheme; there was money and diplomatic brownie points. But Israel had no interest in freeing American prisoners or in funding the Contras. Iran Contra had to have been an American operation where the Israelis were called in for operational help.
I see the Kennedy assassination in the same terms. Oswald had been trained to be a stooge by American military intelligence from 1957, before the foundation of the Dimona Nuclear Reactor was even laid. Indeed, Ben Gurion could have been so angered by Kennedy's insistence on the dismemberment of Dimona that he agreed to contribute Mossad expertise to his assassination. However, the assassination's core plot was American and its genesis predated any possible Israeli involvement.
* By the same token, Piper implicates the Mossad in the murders of Americans who knew too much years after JFK was gone. William Colby's demise is his prime example. This implication dismisses the long list of political murders and murder attempts in the US since 1963, or for that matter, since at least Lincoln's time.
There IS a culture of political murder in the US, it has been on high gear since Clinton has assumed power, it goes back at least 150 years and Israel, the Zionists and Mossad have nothing to do with it.
* Piper paints Israel as the murder and crime capital of the Middle East. May we remind him that assassination was the only means of changing Middle East regimes for a thousand years before Zionism emerged and that most of the hard drugs sold in Europe originate from the Syrian-controlled Beka Valley and Afghanistan. Israel didn't invent the rules of Middle Eastern politics and may well have been forced to adopt them to survive.
* Piper makes a connection between the JFK assassination and Israel's technical help in founding the Chinese nuclear program. While the fact of Sino/Israeli nuclear coooperation may be genuine, Piper fails totally to find its connection to Dealey Plaza. So why include it?
* Similarly, since 9 of 22 Warren Commission lawyers were Jews, they must have had an interest in the coverup. Most specious is Piper's connection between Detroit multi-millionaire Max Fischer and Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford in the coverup. As President, Ford was a disaster for Israel, twice withholding deliveries of fighter jets until Israel withdrew from positions in the Sinai and Golan Heights. He was no Israeli puppet and seemed to revel in pushing then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin around.
If I would draw any conclusions, assuming Piper is right, it's that knowledge of Israel's involvement in the JFK assassination is being used to force Israel to commit suicide. How else can one explain Rabin's decision in 1993 to accede to American (ie CFR) demands and hand over the very heart of his nation to a ragtag band of terrorists and arm them to the teeth to boot? Perhap's Rabin's strange appearance in Dallas was the tool used against the Jewish people in the unstoppable American quest to make Israel defenceless.
* And one cannot ignore the strange demise of JFK Jr. Four witnesses saw the explosion that downed his plane. One was a reporter for the Martha's Vineyard Times. He radioed the airport tower that he was readying to land and then his plane fell 8000 feet in a few seconds. Yes, I'm sure he was murdered. And yes, the disastrous Israeli political establishment had one heck of a motive for involvement. The latest Kennedy to die violently was the only American editor to expose the true conspiracy behind Rabin's assassination. He did it in grand style in a 13 page article in the March 19997 issue of his magazine George. And he had every intention of continuing his exposes until he got to the bottom of the matter. We don't know what drove him to stand alone in seeking the Rabin truth, but it may have had much to do with the information contained within Final Judgement.
Let me conclude by observing that the Israeli public knew nothing whatsoever about how Rabin was really murdered until I took the trouble of explaining the truth to them. Today the polls show that 65% of my fellow Israelis want the Rabin assassination reinvestigated. We are waking up to the ugly reality of the kind of leadership we are saddled with.
But I take the opposite view of Piper: my research says America corrupted Israel and not the other way around. And, probably unlike Piper, I am seeking the truth so that one morning the rotten murderers Americans and Israelis call their political leaders, will not make my country hopelessly unable to defend itself against even rottener forces.
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.
-
Everybody knows that an anti-American government will come to power in Iraq once US troops are removed from the country.
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.
-
Mark,
I would only add that while Israel had MMO, given the extent of the suspect list (with LBJ and all his crooked connections looming large), Israeli help wasn’t needed. I doubt that Israel would have moved on its on without first ascertaining if there was already a plot in the works. And if one looks for any trace of foreign hands in the assassination and cover-up, they appear to be French, if only as false sponsors (and Cuban according to the Russo and Gratz School, or RAGS – a theory in tatters). It’s remarkable how completely the Mossad covered its tracks if it did the job. (Compare 9/11, in which there are several clues that the Mossad had foreknowledge.) Rabin’s visit to Dallas is certainly interesting but, like Nixon’s, could have been a courtesy call and nothing integral to the plot. In sum, while the Israelis are a suspect, I rather doubt that they did it. They didn’t have to.
Ron
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.
-
Ron wrote:
How far would any homicide investigator in any town in America or in the world get on a murder case if he wasn't suspicious of all who had motives to kill the victim, until such time as investigation could eliminate suspects (or "persons of interest") from the list, via alibis or other circumstances?
Ron, respectfully, I do not think that is how homicide investigations proceed. I think typical homicide investigations proceed such as on CSI, checking the crime scene for clues, etc.
Moreover there is a difference between an investigation in 1963-1964 and this Forum. If the Mossad did it, which I highly doubt, there is no way now to prove it. Therefore, all that positing Mossad involvement accomplishes is to is cast innuendos and suspicions on Israel. Which, of course, is Collins' agenda, as is clear from all of his other writings on Isreal and Jewish questions.
But get back to 1963-1964. How in the world would any investigating body go about questioning any state that had policy differences with JFK? Or how could the HSCA have done that?
One would hope that the CIA had had human assets in the intelligence agencies of other states, our own moles, if you will, to pick up rumours of any activities adverse to our interests. But that would have offended the goody two-shoes on this Forum who live in never-never land and have no conception of what a serious life-and-death game was being played at the height of the Cold War.
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.
-
The fact is that LBJ had all kinds of resources to turn to in getting rid of JFK. He was practically stumbling over them. Which makes it seem very unlikely that he would turn to a homicidal bungler like Mac Wallace for the job. (Who would you pick, Mac or Mossad?) But truth is of course stranger than fiction.
On Johnson and Israel, Cohen has this to say in his book (pp. 195-196):
"Johnson was less preoccupied than Kennedy with nuclear weapons proliferation. . . . Johnson already had close ties with prominent Jews who felt strongly about Israel's security. . . . Johnson also lacked Kennedy's interest in nuclear proliferation. . . . A confrontation with Israel on the nuclear weapons issue was therefore less likely (under Johnson) than it had been during Kennedy's years."
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.
-
To Mark S:
At one point in time a large portion of Collin's book was on the Internet and I did readna lot of it.
Your calling him by a Jewish name must be a Freudian slip!
By the way, the anti-Israel hysteria is in everything else he has written about Jews and Israel. I would not honor Collins anymore than I would David Duke.
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.
-
I don't think the sketch looks like either Bishop or Bush.
But Piper is an anti-semite (known by the company he keeps) and I am aware of no evidence for his theory. As I have stated before, MMO is insufficient to even put anyone on the "suspect" list. Gotta have at leasy a teensy bit of evidence linking him or it to the assassination.
I shall not follow this Piper's path into anti-Israeli hysteria.
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.
-
Abraham Bolden was born into a poor family in East St. Louis, Illinois. After graduating from Lincoln University he spent four years as an Illinois State Trooper. His record was so outstanding that in 1959 President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the US Secret Service. Based in Chicago, he won "two commendations for cracking counterfeiting rings".
In 1961 President John F. Kennedy appointed Bolden as part of the Secret Service White House detail. According to Jim Marrs (Crossfire), Bolden was personally selected by Kennedy "in an attempt to integrate the previously all-white Secret Service detail".
Bolden spent only three months working for Kennedy. He complained about the "separate housing facilities for black agents on southern trips". At a meeting with James Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, Bolden criticized the "general laxity and the heavy drinking among the agents who were assigned to protect the President". As a result of these complaints, Bolden was sent back to the Chicago office and assigned to routine anti-counterfeiting duties.
Bolden claimed that in October, 1963, the Chicago Secret Service office received a teletype from the Federal Bureau of Investigation warning that an attempt would be made to kill President Kennedy by a four-man Cuban hit squad when he visited the city on 2nd November. Armed with high-powered rifles, the men were from "a dissident Cuban group". According to investigative journalist Edwin Black, the Secret Service arrested two suspects, however, they were eventually released.
Abraham Bolden later discovered that this information was being kept from the Warren Commission. When he complained about this he was warned "to keep his mouth shut". Bolden decided to travel to Washington where he telephoned Warren Commission Counsel Lee Rankin. Bolden was arrested and taken back to Chicago where he was charged with discussing a bribe with two known counterfeiters. He was eventually found guilty of accepting a bribe and spent six years in prison. When he tried to draw attention to his case, he was placed in solitary confinement.
Sam DeStefano, one of the men who accused Bolden of this crime, was murdered in 1973. DeStefano was close to Sam Giancana, Charles Nicoletti and Richard Cain. It is believed that Cain murdered DeStefano. Soon afterwards, Cain himself was murdered.
In his book, Ultimate Sacrifice, Lamar Waldron claims that according to a CIA memo, mobsters in Chicago were involved in framing Bolden on the bribery charges.
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.
-
Interesting you brought up Amnesty International, David.
Excerpted from its most recent annual report (these matters limited to "the Americas"):
PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
Confirmed or possible prisoners of conscience were held in 2 countries: Cuba, Peru
DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE OR TRIAL
People were arbitrarily arrested and detained without charge or trial in 7 countries: Cuba, Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, USA, Venezuela
DEATH PENALTY
People were sentenced to death in 7 countries: the Bahamas, Cuba, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, USA, and executions were carried out in 1 country: USA.
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.
-
To Mark Stapleton:
I liked your post about the importance of energy police so much that I e-maied it to Geoge last night and he thus decided to make energy policy an important part of his SOTU speech.
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".
-
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?
____________________________________________
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.
-
It seems that Vince Palamara believes the two men are the same person:
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0006-VP.html
Clifton C. Carter and Dead Agents: From "Computers and People" magazine, March 1975 written by Grace Vale [inc. footnoted citations in brackets] "Clifton C. Carter: Intelligence Agent In September, 1963, the late Clifton C. Carter, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson's chief adviser, set up an office in Austin, Texas [Manchester, p. 13]. Carter, a former intelligence agent*, commanded OSS operations in Italy during World War II** [R. Harris Smith, "OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency," (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), p. 98]. His brother was General Marshall S. Carter, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1963, and later head of the National Security Agency, which engages in communications intelligence [ibid., and p. 98n].
On November 22 [1963], Clifton Carter was manning communications in the car following Johnson's. Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, the brother*** of General Charles P. Cabell[David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, "The Invisible Government" (New York: Bantam Books, Inc.,1964), p. 107], General Carter's predecessor as Deputy Director of the CIA, was in the motorcade in a car directly behind Clifton Carter's. After the assassination, Clifton C. Carter remained close to Johnson, staying overnight at his house for the next few days, and continued to meet with him every day in the White House during the first part of his Presidency, although Carter never actually worked in the White House [Michael Amrine, "This Awesome Challenge: The Hundred Days of Lyndon Johnson," (New York: Popular Library, 1964), pp. 25 & 70].
General Marshall S. Carter, His Brother When General Charles Cabell left the CIA after the Bay of Pigs, Nelson Rockefeller was advising the new CIA Director, John McCone, who owned a million dollars worth of stock in Standard Oil in California [James Hepburn, "Farewell America", p. 321]. Governor Rockefeller recommended General Marshall S. Carter as the new Deputy Director of the Agency, according to Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr., former Executive Director of the CIA [Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr., "The Real CIA," (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968), pp. 236-237]." ---- My footnoted comments: *as was Secret Service advance agent Winston G. Lawson, a former CIC agent in the Army stationed at Fort Holabird, MD [4 H 318], during roughly the same time period as Richard Case Nagell (fellow agent Louis B. Sims also served here at the same time [RIF#180-10093-10022]).
In addition, a Lt. Col. George Whitmeyer, who taught Army Intelligence, rode in the pilot car with Jack Puterbaugh, DNC advance man from the Agriculture Department [billy Sol Estes, Henry Marshall, Orville Freeman...Mac Wallace], although Whitmeyer was not scheduled to ride in the car in the first place[RIF#180-10074-10396]! **along with James Jesus Angleton, Ray Rocca (later, CIA liaison to the Warren Commission), and Paul J. Paterni (Deputy Chief of the Secret Service who inspected the limousine on the night of 11/22/63, as well as investigated LHO's income tax check, among other things [see KAC journal Spring 1998 issue---article by author entitled "The Secret Service: In Their Own Words"] ***other interesting connections/ relationships: Gaspard D'Andelot Belin, the General Counsel and the Acting Secretary of the Treasury [C. Douglas Dillon was on a crowded Cabinet plane on 11/22/63], was married to Harriet Lowell Bundy, a member of the William and McGeorge Bundy family [see KAC article mentioned above]. A Secret Service Inspector who would go on to debrief agents after 11/22/63 (and rise to Chief Inspector), N. Jackson Krill, was also a former member of the OSS [ibid]. Lt. Col. George J. McNally, Chief of the Army Signal Corps on 11/22/63 in Texas, was also a former Secret Service agent (1935-1942)[ibid]! Chief James J. Rowley was a former agent of the FBI before joining the Secret Service (he was also a very good friend of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover) [5 H 450]. --- DEAD AGENTS TELL NO TALES: The first agent to die after Dallas: ATSAIC/ Shift Leader Stewart G. "Stu" Stout, Jr., stationed at the Trade Mart on 11/22/63. Died of a sudden heart attack IN THE WHITE HOUSE in either late 1963 or early 1964 [further correspondence with former agent Rex W. Scouten and interviews with Floyd M. Boring and Samuel A. Kinney. Interestingly, both Boring and agent Donald J. Lawton seemed oblivious to the documented fact that Stout WAS in Dallas! Only Scouten would give me the cause of death---the others would NOT]---Stout quit the agency very soon after the assassination and became a White House Usher with Rex Scouten, the current White House Curator who also served with Stout during the Truman years (Stout was also in a building---Blair House---during another November day when shots were fired at a president). The second agent to die after Dallas: Fellow ATSAIC/ Shift Leader Emory P. Roberts, the commander of the Secret Service follow-up car on 11/22/63. Soon after the assassination, according to interviews with Kinney, Emory became the Off-Records Secretary to President Johnson while still a member of the Secret Service[apparently no relation to Mrs. Juanita Roberts, Johnson's Chief Private Secretary]. He died in the late 1960's, the same time an unnamed agent took his life "in the late sixties, in Washington, with his own weopon. There were signs that he was beginning to buckle," according to agent Chuck Rochner ["George Rush, "Confessions of an Ex-Secret Service Agent" (New York: Pocket Books, 1988), pp. 216-217]!
What did these men have in common? They were one of only three total Shift Leaders of the White House Detail; They were both on the Texas trip; They spoke to NOONE in officialdom (only Roberts spoke to anyone at all: William Manchester, author of "THe Death of a President"); They died mysteriously and suddenly, and at a relatively young age (late 40's to early 50's).
Vince Palamara
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?
Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.