Mark Wilson

Hello All.I recently read A Heritage of Stone by Jim Garrison,2nd printing, 1972.In chapter 8, The Ides of November, pages 128-129 ,Garrison discusses Oswald's fellow employees at Reily Coffee Co.......Garrison goes on to say "in July,Alfred Claude,the man who hired Oswald went to work for the Chrysler Aerospace Division" which was located at the Aeronautics and Space Administration facility on the eastern edge of New Orleans....continuing on Garrison explains that within a few days of Claude's departure that Emmett Barbee,Oswald's immediate supervisor at Reily abandoned the coffee business and began a new career with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration center in eastern New Orleans..... Garrison continues on by saying,"within a few weeks of these departures John D Branyon,who had worked with Oswald at Reily,left the coffee business and also found a new position at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration center "......Garrison goes on to say"a few weeks after Oswald's departure,Dante Marachini left the Reily Coffee Co. and launched a new career with the Chrysler Aerospace Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration center in eastern New Orleans."Oswald departed Reily on July 19,1963 and coincidently had started to work at Reily on the same day as Marachini,both started at Reily on May 10th claims Garrison.In regards to Marachini,Garrison states he was a friend of David Ferrie and frequently visited his Bourbon St. apartment....Later on in the chapter Garrison describes another of Ferrie's friends,James Lewallen who ,in another coincidence??, lived in the same apartment house as Marachini in the 1300 block of Dauphine St....You guessed it,Lewallen went to work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration center in eastern New Orleans,also....Garrison puts this time frame in context by saying that within a few weeks of Oswald leaving Reily 7/19/63 ,he is handing out the Cuban leaflets in New Orleans.... I'm curious if any other members can add anymore details to this strange series of coincidences that happened to Oswald's co-workers at Reily in the summer of 1963?

----------------- Thanks; much appreciated (that compilation of witnesses was basically the first major paper I ever did, started in 1991). Rybka died 12/25/75 of a heart attack. Debra Conway alleged (via e-mail), seemingly offhand years ago, that Rybka's family contacted her but, when I asked her for details, I never recieved them. The WC, the HSCA, and everyone else didn't even mention the Rybka/ Roberts incident until I first brought it up in 1994 (at COPA in 1995)--as former agent Larry Newman told me, "I had never seen that before" and didn't have any explanation for it. See my online book for more details re: this and the dead agent 'stories'. The 'stories' may be ultimately untrue, but they provided a cover story for the Secret Service to take the President's body under their control, etc. vince;) Thanks for the reply,Vince.

Welcome Vince.i,too,am a huge fan of your outstanding body of work.I agree with Mr. Jack White that your compilation of witnesses stating that the limo stopped is a crucial piece in debunking the official story and shedding light on how the moments that ended JFK's life played out.A couple of other areas you've touched on that intrigue me greatly are the Rybka stand down ordeal when leaving the airport and the early reports of the "dead SS agent".In regards to the Rybka incident,i first became aware of this after veiwing your piece in TMWKK.To me,the Rybka ordeal is as important as any in exposing how JFK was stripped of his closest protection just moments before he was murdered.Can you add anything on Rybka? is he still alive? if not,when did he die? are there any surviving family members of Rybka? was the scenerio involving Rybka at the airport discussed by the Warren Commission or the HSCA? when was the Rybka/airport scene first known by researchers?..........and with regards to the early reports of a " dead secrect service agent",if this report was true it would make the lone nut assassin theory that more difficult to prove.Why would this be reported early on if it were not true?'It's obvious why the official story would want to discredit the "dead SS agent" story but why would this be out there in the beginning if there wasn't a legitimate reason? Thanks again, Vince. Mark

Hi Mark.Thanks for the interesting passage from Cohen's book,i haven't read the book and had never seen this reference before.Although we share in the theory that there was Israeli involvement of some sort in the execution of JFK,I am a bit skeptical that these Nov 13-14 sessions were directly connected with 11/22/63.The main reasons for my doubts are the Nov 2 Chicago and Nov 18 Tampa apparent plots on JFK's life as well as the information we know in regards to Oswald being in place at the TSBD a month or so earlier than the Nov 13-14 meetings.In my estimation JFK was a dead man walking before Nov 13-14,the Nov 2 Chicago plot already stymied and the Nov 18 plot just a few days from being exposed...On the other hand in defense of your theory regarding the Nov 13-14 sessions being directly related to 11/22/63,i guess it is possible that the plot against JFK was to be carried out on Nov 2 and if it fell through,Nov 18 was the next opportunity, and finally Nov 22 as the third option with these 3 dates all part of the conspiracy.The Nov 13-14 meetings could very well have had discussions on what went wrong on Nov 2 and was an ironing out of the details to make the coup successful on Nov 18 or 11/22/63......It would be interesting to know the timing of scheduling of the Nov 13-14 meetings.....Knowing what we know now ,it would be hard to imagine a better set of circumstances than the Dallas trip presented when you consider relative silence of the DPD(with the exception of Roger Craig),Earl Cabell,LBJ's backyard/influence/connections,Jack Ruby, and the seemingly stand down of proper security on the Dallas trip(especially in the context of Nov 2 and Nov 18)..... What is the probability that Jack Ruby was a Mossad agent?Imo,there is little or no doubt that Ruby was CIA and there is also a high level of certainty,imo, that Mossad would be very interested in having Ruby as a double agent.

It seems to me that if Gary is right about this, a number of new questions arise. How (or why) did CNN get this story so wrong? What was Jack Valenti's actual role at the time, before and after the assasination? What is documented about the role played by the Bloom agency? Hi Sid.There is a short essay in Michael Collins Piper's 6th edition of Final Judgement entitled,maybe a thousand words,The Myth of Dallas:New Revelations.The information included in the essay is said to have arrived to Piper when the 6th edition was to go to press therefore it was an add on.Piper says it was sent anonymously and included 115 footnotes,some of which rely on the mainstream media...in a nutshell the documents attempt to prove that Dallas had a very powerful Jewish community in contrast to " a clique of anti semitic White Anglo-Saxon oil plutocrats"(quote)....The document states that the Citizen Council was the sponsor of the Dallas trip and that Sam Bloom was the long time executive director of the CC.Bloom is described ,"the chairman was Dallas Jewish leader and public relations man,Sam Bloom,the CC's longtime executive director and in retrospect one of the least known but most pivotal figures in world history."

Just for the record Collins Piper left of his own free will unable apparently to cope with the rigour of open debate. Just for the record,i happen to think the Piper/Final Judgement topic in the history book section epitomizes many aspects of poor behaviour.Ultimately, the name callers won out, no Piper no debate....you say open debate ,i say open attack.... We are experiencing parallel realities. Collins Piper was belligerent and hostile and hyper-defensive the second he joined the thread you mentioned. He started arguing with himself, basically. After a few salvos from him in the general direction of everyone on the planet, esp those on the forum, a few members got disgusted and finally swatted back at him. He came into the thread with a major attitude, anticipating arguments, and it became his self-fulfilling prophesy. I never communicated with him, and I was planning to read his book until I read that thread. No way now I'd believe anything that guy writes. He was the abusive one, not the forum members. Hello Myra.Congrats on your recent moderatorship appointment,as well as the others...As to your comments about Piper..I agree he came to the forum very defensive,but if you were familiar with the build up of Piper first participating you would know that before he ever responded,posted or was possibly even a member there was a discussion/debate that in a nut shell asked, "should an anti semite be a member of this forum?".He was attacked before he ever posted on the forum.Holocaust denier,David Duke, and anti semite were some of the terms that were thrown around,again before he ever posted a word on the Education Forum...This is no doubt an interesting thread,an endorsement from our new moderator of how Len Colby and Tim Gratz treat people that disagree with their agendas while others point out all the shortcomings of Americans.

I'd like to add a 4th category that seemingly always gets out of hand and will test the true colors of any future moderator and that is any theory that attempts to debate Israeli or Mossad involvement.These discussions always turn into who's a racsist,bigot,or an anti semite.In the short time i've been a member here,i have to say,i've never been more disgusted than i was after witnessing the way Michael Piper Collins was treated when he offered to answer questions about his book in the Author section.He hasnt been back since and i dont blame him.But you see, the mission was accomplished,have zero debate about the contents of his book,Final Judgement...This scenerio with Collins is one i'm more familiar with because my main interest is the JFK assassination but these type of attacks are not limited to the JFK assassination.The ordeal and circumstance that led to Collins no longer participating on this forum is ,imo, a black mark on open debate. Just for the record Collins Piper left of his own free will unable apparently to cope with the rigour of open debate. Just for the record,i happen to think the Piper/Final Judgement topic in the history book section epitomizes many aspects of poor behaviour.Ultimately, the name callers won out, no Piper no debate....you say open debate ,i say open attack....

I'd like to add a 4th category that seemingly always gets out of hand and will test the true colors of any future moderator and that is any theory that attempts to debate Israeli or Mossad involvement.These discussions always turn into who's a racsist,bigot,or an anti semite.In the short time i've been a member here,i have to say,i've never been more disgusted than i was after witnessing the way Michael Piper Collins was treated when he offered to answer questions about his book in the Author section.He hasnt been back since and i dont blame him.But you see, the mission was accomplished,have zero debate about the contents of his book,Final Judgement...This scenerio with Collins is one i'm more familiar with because my main interest is the JFK assassination but these type of attacks are not limited to the JFK assassination.The ordeal and circumstance that led to Collins no longer participating on this forum is ,imo, a black mark on open debate.

John,You're a class act.I'm in favor of banishments for whatever reasons you see fit.As you stated,You have time,money,and your credibility tied up in the forums.I would actually take it a step further,as others have suggested, and ban members that have not so hidden agendas that constantly disrupt topic after topic.The guilty parties know what theyre doing and want to create an environment of chaos.It's in your best interest to neutralize those that detract from what this place is, The Education Forum.

What "Judeo-Communist victory" are you talking about. The Soviet Union played an important role in the defeat of fascism but are really saying that the rest of the allies represented "Judeo"? Hi John.I'm not sure what the author of the info meant by the phrase "Judeo-Communist victory" either.

This article came from Rense.com.As I read it, i could only think deja vu all over again in regards to the current war the US is involved in.The more things change the more they stay the same. The Amazing Warnings Of Benjamin Freedman A Jewish Defector Warns America 1-21-7 Introductory Note Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S. Benjamin Freedman Speaks: Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep. What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed. Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally. I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime. Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I. After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that. That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost. That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout." It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel. Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth." Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema 'Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat. And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that? There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations. Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything. The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that. The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat. After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do? In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "Made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "Made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing. Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous. The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth. Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world. For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have. What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world. What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going. Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony. What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as "Jews". I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as "so-called Jews", because I know what they are). The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves "Jews", were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were. They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call "Jews". There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith. These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today "Jews". Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/facts2.htm#Kol Nidre Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/facts1.ht...arim23a-23b> Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

I too, am a huge fan of Palamara.Another outstanding piece.

Ben Gurion resigned in June 1963. Does Piper see this as an element of "plausible deniability" (Ben Gurion was no longer PM, so couldn't easily be tied to what followed) or as "getting out of the way of" those who wanted JFK eliminated? It seems like it could be read that way as well, that Ben Gurion might have represented some obstacle to "a plan to eliminate JFK."Hi Daniel,Piper theorized that the assassination of JFK was BG's last order to Mossad as PM,then he resigned.His theory, as motive was the dead end they had come to...JFK was not going to let Israel get the bomb and BG's position was getting the bomb as his most important task,the diplomacy was over,the way Piper sees it.....Also playing into Piper's theory was a deep disrespect the BG had for JFK,JFK's age was a factor,he being so young and lacking in wisdom..Piper cited at least one instance where BG referred to JFK as a parent would adress their child,i believe he called him son in a letter between the 2.....Also playing into BG's distaste for JFK was the apparent anti semitic positions Joe Kennedy had taken during WWII,also,JFK's postion on Algeria's independence was in direct conflict with BG and Israel's interests,as Piper sees it....

Hello All.I recently read Final Judgement,the 6th edition and highly recommend it to researchers that have an open mind.Awhile back i started a topic that was consistent with Piper's theory, entitled,"Israel,LBJ and the JFK assassination"before i had read FJ,needless to say that discussion quickly, and coincidently turned into a festival of changing the subject from the assassination of JFK to who is or isn't an anti semite,much the same way this topic deteriorated......The theory comes down to several points,here's a few that stood out to me.......How powerful was Lansky among the mafia leaders? Lansky was CIA, was the CIA mafia? Was Lansky,Ruby,Angleton, and others Mossad?......... Israel wanted the bomb,JFK opposed, How far would Israel go to get what they so very much wanted?...... Why did RFK go after the mafia,who helped get JFK elected?............. Angleton?, was he the fox watching the chicken coop? LBJ,Bush,Nixon,Ben Gurion,RFK,Joe Kennedy all get play in the book....The deaths of William Colby and John Paisley are discussed and are very interesting in the context of this theory....Sam Bloom is an intriguing character and Bernard Weissmann is,i believe, not mentioned in the book and not in the index.....In the end for me,it is amazing, the concerted,ongoing efforts to keep Israel off of the list of possible conspirators in the assassination of JFK considering the major motives they had for replacing LBJ with JFK.

Hello all.I ,too, was banned/deactivated from Della Rosa's forum several years ago...I never made a post but enjoyed reading the topics and discussions as well as viewing his extensive photo archive,one of the best i've ever come across....A short time after registering,i received an email or viewed a post that said Rich was in need of money to run his forum.I communicated with Rich and/or Shelby stating that i would shortly be sending a donation but in the mean time i was deactivated....I didn't worry about it and moved on. At the time,i was a bit disgusted but realized the JFK assassination is a billion dollar industry and Rich wanted his piece of the pie. Now,as an impartial observer to the JFK Research forum and John Simkin's Education forum,it's clear that John has no agenda other that covering as much info as possible and asks for nothing in return from his members.Rich on the other hand,wants the members to pay for his forum and imo,attempts to regulate,apparent, first hand info he has about Elm st on 11/22/63 in regards to the " other film"...In a nut shell,Rich claims to have witnessed another film of the assassination,of higher quality that the z film or any others but is suprisingly mum with his generic description........What we have is 2 Forums,2 Moderators....One forum moderator asks for nothing from his members and distributes relevant info as it becomes available and a second forum moderator that has his hand out,if you want to be a member of his forum, and attempts be vague when describing the "other film".......The "other film" is the smoking gun of all smoking guns which proves the z film has been altered and the entire scenerio on Elm st is a total fabrication. John,you've created the most credible, superior message board and data base on the internet, in regards to the JFK assassination and other controversial conspiracy topics.Keep up the good work. Thanks again,Mark

I don't understand why it "can only be described" that way. If I were Rybka, and I were assigned to ride the right running board of the follow-up car, and turned around and saw there was no place for me to get on the running board, as the car was going by me and Roberts was telling me to get on, I would tell Roberts to go to hell too. I think there was security stripping in Dallas that day, but I don't think this incident had anything demonstrable to do with it. If you want something demonstrable, count the motorcycles and their positions escorting the limo in Dealey Plaza. Whose idea was that? Ron,i watched it a few more times,keeping in mind your thinking that there was no room on the running board being the source of Rybka's reaction and i would respectfully disagree because Rybka is throwing his arms up in the air as he begins to turn around and if you notice,towards the end of the clip, the agent on the back of the running board gets in the back seat, leaving plenty of room on the board.... Or he died knowing he was the only man that could've saved Kennedy's life,only, if he'd be allowed to do his job.

I have implied no such thing, I find the drinking session the night before to be dereliction of duty of the highest order, heads should have rolled. I just dont find the Rybka incident to be particularly suspicious. If you wish to discuss the Miami, and Chicago attempts please start a seperate thread. Steve. Chicago,Miami,Dallas, they're all relevant when discussing JFK's security...Rybka's reaction,imo,can only be described as defiant to Robert's order to fall back.

i'll give you some evidence,if the secret service had done their job that day,11/22/63 would be a footnote in history as the day of a foiled assassination attempt.....Palamara's work speaks for itself,i'm a huge fan.... you discount the uncovered Chicago and Miami plots against JFK, in the previous weeks prior to Dallas, as if they never happened and imply that Dallas was a routine trip in regards to security....

Hello....Secret Service Agent Henry Rybka's role or non-role on 11/22/63,in my opinion, is one of the most mysterious pieces to the puzzle in the assassination of JFK.All the evidence involving Rybka,which is very little, that i've seen has come through the priceless research of Vince Palamara.Rybka seems to have disappeared into a vacuum minutes before JFK was killed.....For those not familiar with Rybka,he was a SS agent protecting the right back of the Presidential limo on 11/22/63 when the motorcade was leaving Love Field moments before JFK was killed,Rybka along with Clint Hill, who was protecting the back left of the limo and assigned to Jackie were ordered by Emory Roberts to fall back.Hill took the order in stride and fell back to the follow up Secret Service car with little or no unusual reaction but Rybka on the other hand, was somewhat defiant to this order by raising his arms in disgust as if to say "what the heck is going on here??".Rybka stayed at the air field and was apparently left out of some of the follow up reports as if he wasnt even part of the protection detail......Now connecting the dots as best we know it.......i believe Hill and Rybka were assigned to Jackie and JFK respectively and without these strange fall back orders, moments before the assassination, both of the agents wouldve been on the back of the limo at the time of the assassination......If Rybka was in place on Elm St. he couldve made a difference or not.....the plotters couldve just shot the agents first and then went after JFK,obviously more difficult than killing an unprotected JFK,but under the scenerio that unfolded,at least 6 seconds in which shots occurred probably more,if the 1st shot didnt get the agent(s) they would likely have been able to get both JFK and Jackie down,covered and out of harm's way.....i would consider the Rybka ordeal a smoking gun in the case.i'd be interested in other members take on all of this. mark

I agree completely with the other member's comments. John's time, effort, and knowledge are priceless, especially regarding the jfk assassination. Thanks John. Mark Wilson

An interesting point about I. F. Stone and Noam Chomsky. However, I am not convinced this is because they were both Jewish. It has to be admitted that most left-wing activists in the United States and the rest of the world have shown little interest in the assassination of JFK. One of the reasons for this is that JFK is seen by the left as a typical American politician who posed no real threat to capitalism. Therefore they believe that he was probably killed by Oswald. They accept there was a cover-up but put this down to an attempt to hide the incompetence of the CIA and the FBI. What those on the left fail to grasp is that in 1963 JFK did pose a serious threat to the ruling elite. So did Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy in 1968. Conspiracy theorists have been successfully smeared as being paranoid. Those on the left wish to avoid this label. They would rather see themselves as romantic revolutionaries. They know that they are unable to change the system. However, that does not really matter. As long as the remain intellectually respectable, they are more than happy to earn a good living criticizing the failings of capitalism. Outstanding on several points.

So if it were a white stripper you'd find the charges more credible? It sounds like you have problems with blacks and Jews. I lived in the South when I was a kid and know it has changed a lot over the last couple of decades, apparently in some corners of Virginia it hasn't changed enough. More out of context quotes,how surprising? in case you were so appalled when you read the "black stripper Duke lacross team" comment that you couldnt read further because of the shock,here's the entire quote; ....We've got spies,bribes, crooked congressmen,secrets being stolen,pardons,treason,wars being started,and manipulation transpiring every day that CLEARLY benefits Israel which gets little if any mention by the "american" media but you let a black stipper charge rape against the Duke lacross team, or a woman walking around with semen from 2 different men in her undergarments claiming Kobe Bryant raped her and watch the 'american' media cover a story....Full hours,multiple shows nightly on multiple channels.....OJ,Kobe,Monica,Lacy Peterson this list goes on..... Now,i described the Duke and Kobe rape allegations in the generic way the media described and promoted these events.....How come the headlines about these affairs didnt read, Kobe rapes white woman in Colorado? or Woman raped by Duke lacross team.......I didnt report these stories,don't blame me for how the media portrays the major headlines.......again, more deflections to get off the original topic,in the most disingenous way.

oh really? what's amusing is how you continue to dodge the context of this thread and your persistence to insinuate i have a problem with Jews and that i'm an anti semite rather even once adress the theory of this topic. I think your previous comments and the material on the sites you link to convicts you of anti-semitism. You're entitled to your opinion.You are to be commended for putting a stop to the beating around the "Bush" and doing what you do best,name calling and diverting.Youve done all you can do to this point,now, all that's left is to keep repeating it over and over.

oh really? what's amusing is how you continue to dodge the context of this thread and your persistence to insinuate i have a problem with Jews and that i'm an anti semite rather even once adress the theory of this topic.

hi Len.i'm not going feed into to your loaded analysis of my statements other than to say the case of the JFK assassination is still an unsolved case.it's my opinion that Israel has quietly obtained much power in many areas since 11/22/63 and i refuse eliminate Israel as a possible suspect because it's my opinion theyve benefited greatly and has had the means to participate in the cover up. Jews are no more responsible for the actions of sinister elements in the Israeli government,Mossad, or other radical Zionist movements than myself or any other American is responsible for the fascist,imperialist agendas of George W. Bush and company.The overwhelming majority of people all over the world, of all different religions and races only want their families to live in peace and according to what their culture's call for and there are,unfortunately, others that promote war, violence, and other corruptions...