Len Colby

Still I think that's preferable to 1) in effect imitate the tactics of their mentors* and 2) give him a reason to say he is being silenced. *Ironically Piper likes to talk about the right to free speech and has spent his entire career working for a man who worships Hitler. Another irony is that while he likes to portray all those who oppose his views as being part of the "Israel lobby" the three people who have been most vocal in saying he shouldn't have a place here, Tim, John Dova and you aren't Jewish (or so I assume) while I a Jewish descendant of a Holocaust victim who supports Israel's right to exist* supported his right to join. * I am however highly critical of many of that countries policies

For heaven's sake, give him a chance to make his first post. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition. Those are legitimate questions Mark. What are you some sort of “moral guardian” of this forum? You insisted that Piper be allowed to post here and chided John Dolva and Tim for objecting to his presence. Just as he has a right to join this forum veteran members have the right to ask him questions that serve to indicate whether or not he has any bias that many have predetermined the results of his research. He requested membership in this forum and his fellow members have the right to ask him any relevant questions that don’t violate the rules. Or do you think Piper has more rights that Tim?

It's been about 20 years since I read about this but from what I remember the Federal judges were more likely to rule in favor civil rights but the state judges normally ruled against then. Don't forget Earl Warren and LBJ. Love them or hate no matter what you think their role was in the assassination their contributions to Civil Rights are undeniable. This is basically true but I don't think that justifies denying his freedom of speech, only people who's views are distasteful to some need such protection. Worse would be if he were banned from the forum and could play the role of a "free speech" martyr. He would be able to complain that the "Israel lobby" was preventing him from participating in Internet forum. He has already insinuated that you (John D.) and Tim are part of that lobby even though I assume neither of you are Jewish or part of any "Zionist" organizations. He finds it hard to accept that people find him and his views distasteful. Len

One of those "willing to give the oxygen of publicity on this forum" to Piper is your fellow moderator John Simkin. I only begrugingly supported allowing him to post here for reasons mentioned in my previous post.

John -There are now 2 cross threads relating to Piper and his book, wouldn't it be better to combine them into one? Tim already directed a question to him on the other thread. You could move the old thread over here to the books section. You could then edit your first post of the old thread to add a link to a new post on page 13 where you ask him the question above. IMO that would be the best solution. Len

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4128 Jack, 1 - The images here are not clear enough to determine if you accurately marked the tops of their heads. Can you post higher resolution copies? 2 - As I'm sure you are aware the further an object is from the camera the smaller its apparent size. How far back from the edge of the pedestal do you think they were? Did you take this into account? Admittedly this would only make a small difference. 3 - Z has his legs apart and appears to be slouching or leaning forward, this would effectively "shorten" him too. 4 - Even if you were only 10% off that would shave 6 - 7 inches off Z apparent height.

Ron be a little more specific, give examples of Greer saying something untrue that we can be reasonably sure he knew it was untrue. Even if he did, like Clinton, commit perjury, it does not necessarily follow that he was complicit or incompetent. I asked you before if you were sure you would have done better if you were in his shoes but you didn't answer. One more question, do think he was complicit or "merely" incompetent? Len

I am grateful to hear that, since you are in phone contact with Piper why don't you ask him his views on the subject and if claims not to be a Holocaust denier ask him to explain his comments that indicate he is and his constant association with people who are. I didn't try to label you "as a bigoted and prejudiced monster" I asked you to clarify statements that lead me to suspect you might be "anti-Semitic" because they were very similar to language used by the neo-Fascist anti-Semitic extreme Right and coincidentally or not championing a writer from that same extremist political camp. Your refusal to answer my question directly and use of fake quotes (I assume you thought they were authetic) is not helping dispel that notion. The second Sharon quote in no way supported your point and served only to put him and to certain extent all Jews in a bad light. As for the quote from Fulbright he was of course racist and from my experience most racists are also anti-Semitic. Findley* as I'm sure you are aware, like you, has very strong anti-Israeli feelings so it's not at all surprising he would make such a comment. You have yet to back your claim that the "Israel lobby" is responsible for suppresing Piper's book. 1 - What exactly does this have to do with what is being debated here? Take it to the Political Conspiracies sub-forum. 2 - No one planted explosives in the WTC they collapsed due impact damage and the resultant fires. The fact that no civil engineers, licensed architects, failure analysis specialists, construction contractors or demolition experts from anywhere in the World, another words no one with relevant expertise publicly backs the "controlled demolition theory" should make this clear. Citation? You want to bet on this? Got any evidence? If so start a thread in the Conspiracies sub-forum. Who benefited most from the toppling of the Taliban? 1) The Afghanis 2) The former Soviet republics to the North of Afghanistan - They felt the Taliban were a destabilizing influence they were are to get aid etc. from the US in exchange for letting their territory be used during the invasion. 3) Iran – They hated the Taliban. 4) Pakistan – In order to get their cooperation for the invasion the Bush administration took a lot of diplomatic pressure off of the Pakistani government and unfroze and increased military aid to them. 5) The Gulf States – Much of al Quedas efforts went into liberating the holy Arabian Peninsula from the "infidels" as they referred to any government that wasn't as fundamentalist as they were. 6) The Russians – The Taliban and al-Queda gave aid to Chechen and other Muslim rebels. 7) The US arms industry. Who benefited from the overthrow of Saddam? 1) Kuwait and to a lesser extent the other Gulf States 2) Iran 3) Iraqi Kurds and Shiites 4) The US arms industry. 5) Israel but less so than the parties above. I agree Len * In 2001 Findley wrote a book in ehich he compared bin-Ladden to the Marquis da Lafayette. He has been an outspoken critic of Israel and the US's support of that country since the 80's. He just came back from the Middle East where he hobnobed with Hamas leaders.

I have no time for people who deny the Holocaust. However, their crime needs to be seen in perspective. Who is worst, the people who denied it happened, or the people who allowed it to happen? What about those British and American politicians who denied Jews entry when they tried to flee from Nazi Germany. What about those British and American military commanders who refused to bomb the transport links to the concentration camps? My least favourite historian, David Irving, aged 67, has been held in an Austrian prison since 17th November, 2005, because he said in 2000 that there had been no gas chambers at the Auschwitz camp. Yet this is a country that elected a former Nazi to become its president. Tim says that people who he says are Holocaust deniers should be banned from this Forum (it is not at all clear that Michael Collins Piper falls into this category). Yet I allow him to support a man who has caused an illegal war to take place in order to satisfy the needs of his financial backers. I mostly agree with John, the inaction of the Allies' political and (European Theater) military commanders was disgraceful, many of the Holocaust's 10 million victims (about half of whom were Jewish) could have been saved. The denial of visas lead many Jews to flee to Latin America or even as far as China and those were of course the luck ones*. I feel that Piper should be admitted as a member for a few reasons. 1) I am a firm believer in free speech and feel that basic rights should be extended to all no matter how distasteful their views. America's not to recent past illustrates this, in the 1960's many southern Federal judges many of whom shared the racist views of the local community upheld the civil rights of African Americans because they believed that's what the Constitution and federal law mandated. To them blacks demanding their fair place in society probably were as distasteful as Piper and his ilk are to me. These judges often made these rulings at a high personal price as many became outcasts in their communities or even their families. 2) No offense to present company, but membership is not really a special honor, since John and Andy let just about anybody in. He is being given a soapbox not a stamp of approval. 3) If he is he is barred here, he would be able to play the part of a "persecuted martyr" and go on about how the "Israel lobby" is even keeping him out of internet forums. 4) I doubt his thesis will bear the scrutiny of the combined expertise of this forum's members * What is little discussed is that financial status was very important to being able to flee Nazi era Europe. Visas often had to be "bought" from corrupt consular officials and application fees and transportation costs were high. In addition many countries would only grant visas to wealthy families. When my mother was born here family was working class but fortunately my grandfather was a successful businessman and was able afford forged documents as well as visas and transportation to Cuba.

That's about to change.

Jeff, Neither your post above nor #94 addressed my questions to you. In Post # 46 you referred “the Zionist/Neoconservatives controlling our current government.” You didn’t limit this to US foreign policy these are very different statements. Coincidentally or not this is the party line of the neo-Fascist Nazi/Klan friendly ultra-right such as Piper and his “newspaper” the American Free Press. They also blame most cultural ills on Jews and believe the Holocaust was a hoax and believe the Zionists want to take over the World. Do they represent your views? A simple yes or no will suffice. You still have to offer evidence of your assertion that the “Israel lobby” has kept the book out of bookstores and that it can not be found in any library. If there was a post about it being kept out of a single library I don’t remember reading it. As for me buying the book, as the descendant of a Holocaust victim I do not want to give my money to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. If he or any of his Hitler worshiping friends want to send me a copy I’ll read it when I find the time. Why do you make such a point of pushing people to buy it? I believe that an author’s prejudice directly relates to a books merits. Ideally a researcher can be objective, not that he doesn’t have a POV but that 1) that the POV not be based on prejudice and 2) he can be impartial enough that he does filter out information that is contrary to such prejudiced beliefs. His colleagues* start with a thesis and work backwards to find supporting evidence. His thesis is basically ‘the Jews killed JFK, RFK and MLK jr and were responsible for Watergate, Monicagate, and the pedophile priests scandal’. Did his thesis lead him to the facts, or did the facts lead him to his thesis, I suspect the former is the case. His disingenuousity about his views makes me doubt he is intellectually honest. Will I give him a ‘fair hearing’? Well I won’t pretend to like him and will ask him some rather pointed questions and if he or anybody else doesn’t like it that’s their problem. I will try to judge what he has to say impartially though. I suspect he won’t do very well he as he will have to debate his views with people very well versed on the subject. *As far as I can tell he has always written for “Revisionist” publications and publishing houses run by Willis Carto like the Institute for Historical Review, the Barnes Review, the Spotlight and the American Free Press

What book is the photo from? Where was it taken and when and who took it? What confirmation is there that the men were cops and that what they were looking at was blood? The journalist, Wallace O. Chariton, in 1990. What did he say, she said they said?

I had a very hard time believing Sullivan was an accident. A good friend of mine also wrote an investigative story on this case at the time and it sure raised a lot more questions than it answered. However, I no longer have Harvery Yazijian's article, nor does he. Dawn I don't think it makes sense to suspect this as an assassination attempt. If this guy died it would have drawn to much attention to the case. Also I find it hard to believe an experince hunter like Chenney could have tried to kill some one at close range with a shotgun and only "peppered him" Dawn - I know there must be a lot of lawyers in Austin but did you know this guy?

Fair enough Mark!! But I don't understand why Tim's stance so upset's you. John Dolva's stance is similar but you didn't say anything to him. Could it be your pre-existing hostility to Tim and his politics is what really caused such indignation? I hope you can show similar antipathy for Piper if he reveals his prejudices here. Jeff I see you're reading again, ditto the unanswered questions I've asked you a few times already.

What proof do you have of a single shooter? Was it LHO? If not who and where were they shooting from? For many the stongest proof of a conspiracy is evidence of multiple shooters. If you believe there was only one shooter what makes you so sure there was a conspiracy? Was the WC's cover-up part of the conspiracy? I'm curious because your theory seems very different from any other I've seen. I thaught about starting a new thread "Tom Purvis' assassination theory" but didn't want to put you on the spot. Maybe instead of replying to me here you could start the new thread.

Lee Forman said. We have covered this in the past - a lot of detail should appear in several threads. The pools - plural, were seen by multiple witnesses. Potentially there were 3 separate pools witnessed. 1. Behind the retaining wall on the 'knoll' 2. Behind the walled walkway, on the sidewalk, in the Pergola Garden area 3. On the sidewalk along the Elm St extension, closer to the back of the TSBD. 2 of these pools can be found detailed on Don Roberdeau's plat. Where can it be found? Numerous eye-witness references to these pools can be found in Fetzer's MIDP. On what pages I only found 1 reference to 1 pool Coley's on page 48. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0812694228...v=search-inside The bloody piece of flesh may have been a piece of Kennedy's head - and indeed, it may have left a dripping trail, as per Couch's witness account - but I would hesitate to link that to all 3 pools. Do you think it's possible that a piece of JFK's head could have ended up in any of those locations? Neither Couch nor nor Coley nor Anynesworth (I imagine) said anything about "a bloody piece of flesh". Couch said nothing about a bloody trail, at least not in the 2 pages Jack provided. Odd Couch says he was there with another photographer. The President has just been shot they are close by and they see cops running with guns drawn like they are chasing someone, they see an 8 - 10 inch pool of blood and neither one takes a single photo. When was the first time Couch claims to have seen this, 10+ years after the fact? Was the 2nd photographer ever found? The dead SS man reports come to mind - but clearly, something occurred that was not publicly reported on. How well documented are these reports? Was the dead SS agent supposed to have been in one of those spot's? Would it make sense for one to be in one of those locations? If as the theory goes the pool of blood was from an accidental victim of a lost bullet: 1) It would be a huge coincidence if the victim was an SS agent esp. considering the location 2) IIRC all three locations are above where JFK was so the errant sniper was shooting up? Up from where? According to Fetzer's MIDP there were only 28 SS agents in Dallas and none were on the "grass knoll" Pg. 49 Even JC Price's affidavit comes to mind. Care to elaborate?

Also someone who lost so much blood in one pool would have been likely to bleed to death in a few minutes if they hadn't gotten medical attention. As I pointed out, Jim Hood took a photograph that was taken away by the FBI. Hugh Aynesworth confirmed that he saw the photograph. However, he believed it was a photograph of a spilt drink. Jerry Coley's wife also confirmed that her husband told her about the pool of blood, photographs, visit by the FBI, etc. She also received the threatening phone-calls that forced her to go into hiding with her children. Aynesworth saw the photo but though it was spilt Coke, did he confirm the the FBI siezed the photo and negatives? Who did Coley's wife tell she recieved the phone calls?

It is important to separate fact from fiction from flights of fancy in any case one wants to investigate. To me these reports of large pools of blood seem more likely to fit into the latter categories rather than the first. Couch says he saw an 8 – 10 diameter pool of blood in front of the TSBD and Coley saw pool of approximately 1 pint of blood on the steps of the grassy knoll. Neither of these men has any corroborating evidence or testimony, Couch was a photographer but neither he nor anyone else took any photos. So I ask: Are there any other reports of the FBI etc. coming into newsrooms and seizing both photos and negatives? How much of the story did Aynesworth confirm? Is it reasonable to believe that if these pools of blood really existed that only one photographer would taken a photo of them and no one else reported seeing them? Is it reasonable to believe that people could have been shot in these locations at the time off the assassination and there aren’t any reports of them being shot? Not from witnesses, not from the victims not from DPD or hospital staff. Odd that neither man mentioned a trail of blood leading anywhere, where did the “bleeders” go? Where they levitated somewhere? Len

Ron to justly accuse someone of lying you have to show that their intention was to decieve i.e. that he knew that what he was saying was false. Do you have any evidence that he KNOWINGLY made false statements? As Al pointed out he had the sun is his eyes so seeing the overpass clearly might not have been easy. As for the crack in the windshield IIRC it was small. You also have to take into account the situation he was in. Have you ever been in a situation 1/100 as stressful? If so are you sure your recall of that situation is 100% accurate? This is an example of why I think you jump to conclusions. Len ==================================================================== Thanks Tom, after getting unjustly slagged by the moderator of this forum it's nice to "hear" some kind words from a fellow member! Are you saying you support the LNT? Len

If Piper were merely anti-Israel he would not bother me so much, it's the fact that he is an anti-Semetic Holocaust denier that upsets me. If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi party what would be your position on him being invited to join this forum? That question is for you to John. The "lynch mob" does not need to wait for Herr Piper to show up here he has made his views clear already. If Posner ever shows up here I think most members of this forum will know his POV before he starts posting. Len, I'm not sure I understand your meaning when you state, "That question is for you to John". If you have a question for John I suggest you direct it to him. I won't be addressing questions to John on your behalf. However, I can answer your loaded question if you like. "If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi Party what would your position on him being invited to join this forum? My answer depends on whether such an individual has something of value to contribute to the collective knowledge of the assassination. If wouldn't matter to me if its a nazi, fascist, Klan or Bonesman. Listen to the argument and evaluate its merit. If a Nazi, Klansman or holocaust denier wished to argue the dubious merits of their philosophies, then they could do that--elsewhere on the Forum--and would no doubt be heavily criticised by those members, myself included, who disagree with such philosophies. However, I doubt if I would waste time arguing on those threads. Now I have a hypothetical for you. If Piper presents arguments which are logical and cohesive, based on detailed research and not blind ideology, which may lead to a greater understanding of the factors involved in the death of JFK, would you still try to silence him? Sorry Mark that was a typo I meant "If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi party what would be your position on him being invited to join this forum? That question is for you too, John." As to your question to me, as I've already stated I'm not trying to silence him. John - You are skirting the most important questions and issues to have come up in this thread, as moderator of this forum you really should address them. What is happening with Piper? My position is that you shouldn't invite him to join if you haven't done so already but accept him as a member if he requests it. Len

Tim, You don't seem to be able to accept that others may look at things from a different perspective than yours. Your thundering speeches mean nothing to me. I'm interested in what this guy has to say about the assassination. I believe Mossad involvement is a possibility. The assassination is what I am interested in. All the rest is just a lotta noise. You seem to be outraged when others don't share your world view and moral indignation. Amazing. Mark I find your position here curious. Tim objects to Piper's anti-Semetism and this upsets you? Tim doesn't have the right to object to anti-Semitism but you have the right to object to objection? Amazing indeed. This raises a important question are all POV's equally valid? Len

If Piper were merely anti-Israel he would not bother me so much, it's the fact that he is an anti-Semetic Holocaust denier that upsets me. If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi party what would be your position on him being invited to join this forum? That question is for you too, John. The "lynch mob" does not need to wait for Herr Piper to show up here he has made his views clear already. If Posner ever shows up here I think most members of this forum will know his POV before he starts posting. EDIT - typo fixed changed 'to' to 'too' underlined above

Jeff I see you're reading the thread, you have yet to explain your the "Zionists" control the government comment or support you claim that the "Israel" lobby is to blame for Herr Piper's book not being easily available. On most forums people are expected to defend there comments and claims when asked to by other members. When I don't know much about a subject but see that one side or party of an argument avoids addressing the comments of the other my assumption is that the side that is being evasive is in the wrong Len

Chris, Again to be fair to Greer for how many seconds did he act improperly? For how much of that time did he know they really were being shot at? Wouldn’t it be fair to grant him a few seconds for over coming his disbelief? Do you know what the Secret Service's SOP was at the time? I think there are two big differences between a SSA driving a presidential limo and a PFC driving in a combat zone. 1) Expectation and preparedness – A PFC would of course expect to come under fire every time (or at least many/most times) he went for a drive in a combat zone. The last time a President had come under fire was 30 years earlier. The PFC would have no reason to doubt that he was indeed coming under fire. The PFC and his fellow soldiers probably would be armed with more than pistols and would be able to shoot back at their attackers if indeed they were shooting from the front. 2) Training – Maybe this is just a myth I picked up from war movies and books but my understanding is that soldiers esp. those sent into combat are conditioned through repeat drilling to act pretty much automatically, I don’t think SSA’s were drilled to act so automatically. Would so harshly criticize a grunt who hesitated for a few seconds the first time he came under fire? What if this happened in an area not considered a combat zone where he wouldn’t be expecting to come under fire? Expecting you to have been the driver of the POTUS’s limo when it came under fire is of course unreasonable, but have you ever been under fire? If so how did you react the first time? You didn’t ask an earlier question, if you were in Greer’s place how certain are you that you would have responded any better? One more question, while his slow down certainly helped the shooter(s) how much of a chance is there that if he had driven away any faster that JFK would have survived? Len

As I said to John my position is not that Piper should not be allowed to defend his opinions but rather that he and you should admit that he comes here with a stong bias. I can't speak for Tim but in my case I don't fear what Piper has to say as much as disdain for what motives him. While inviting Carto to the JFK Assassination sub-forum obviously would not be appropriate there also are History Books, Nazi Germany, History and Political Conspiracies sub-forums which in theory he could be invited to join. You say you wouldn't read a Holocaust denial thread, by the same token wouldn't you question the motives of a Holocaust denier who blames the Kennedy assassination on a 'Jewish conspiracy'? Len