Terry Mauro

Welcome to the Forum. A very good first post. I agree that it is highly unlikely that Johnson had anything to do with the planning of the assassination. It is even possible that he did not even know that the assassination was going to take place in Dallas. It is important to see Johnson as a representative of a group rather than as a lone individual. The threats that Johnson faced in 1963 (the investigation of people like Bobby Baker, Fred Korth, Billie Sol Estes, Fred Black, etc.) did not only his career. Johnson was just part, although a very important part, of the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Complex. If Johnson had been fully exposed as a crook and murderer in late 1963, early 1964, he would have brought down a whole network of people. Johnson could not be allowed a fall, in the same way Baker could not be fully exposed for his role in the MICIC. Johnson’s role was not to plan the assassination but to cover it up. The evidence does show that Johnson worked closely with the FBI and CIA to cover-up the assassination. They had their own individual motives for that but they could have been involved in the actual planning of the assassination. The reason that I don’t believe that Johnson was actually involved in the planning of the assassination is because Mac Wallace appears to have been one of the shooters. Wallace had too many known links with Johnson. I therefore think Wallace was used to ensure Johnson covered up the assassination. I am not sure that the American people would have accepted the Henry II defence against being involved in the Thomas Becket murder. That is why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as an assassin. I believe he was involved in a plot to kill Castro and Robert Kennedy knew about this. Therefore, he had no option but to go along with the cover-up. ***************************************************** "That is why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as an assassin. I believe he was involved in a plot to kill Castro and Robert Kennedy knew about this. Therefore, he had no option but to go along with the cover-up." I also believe that to be a very distinct possibility. Although, I am not so sure Wallace made it to Dealey Plaza, simply because I don't think the shooters were home-grown good ol' boys, to begin with. That would be equivalent to "crapping where you eat," and I don't think any of Wall Street's Tejas contingency could afford to leave a toilet paper trail that obvious, back to the killing field. I could be wrong, but then again, maybe not.

Here's the url below: http://monty.kera.org/

*********************************************** "The generation of the 1970's antiwar activists would look at our culture and probably think that 'we deserve whatever we get,' and I tend to agree." Throw in the anti-nuke, as well as the Civil Rights activists of the 1960's, and I'd say 'you got that right,' Mr. Howard! BTW, my addressing you as Mr. Howard, is in no way meant to be sarcastic. It's a matter of being able to distinguish you from the rest of the "Roberts" in the membership of this forum. I hope you don't mind?

************************************************ "Of course you all know that I do not believe Johnson, or anyone high in the FBI or CIA did it, but I think it can be safely said that if anyone so situated was smart enough to plan the dastardly deed he was also smart enough to ensure there were no incriminating documents sitting in any government files." For all we know, and for how it appeared to me, Johnson was merely another tool, and possible scapegoat for the people whose interests mattered more than some political stooge's, which is what I believe LBJ was. Look to Wall Street, if you want the orchestrators of this royal scam. The Granddaddy of the American Oil Industry was/is Rockefeller, coupled with his transportation import/export crony and head of the largest financial house on that same-said Street, Morgan. Wrap it all up with your very own corporate law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, and the well-positioned Allen Dulles, heading up the show to do your bidding and you have the cornerstone from which to launch all of your affairs, be they financial investments, oil leases, interstate/international commerce, and even murderous coup d'etats, domestic and otherwise. Who else would have the resources at their fingertips, the financial means to hire the best and to cover their tracks? Brown/Root/Halliburton were merely Texas-based extentions of this empire. You can hash all the myriad collection of minor and not-so-minor connections involved, as well as the off-shore exploitative holdings of United Fruit and Freeport Sulphur, but where do they all originate from? Where are all the deals formulated and cut? Wall Street. Who has the money to hire the best of the professionals? Wall Street. Trust me when I tell you this, anything originating out of its interstate/international offices be it New York or London, look upon any other points on the globe from which to lay down their drilling, clear-cutting, or mineral and ore stripping, and that includes Chicago, Houston [Dallas is laughable], and L.A., as mere outback or rural backwater extensions from which to exploit resources. Anything or anyone else, is merely chump change. Get your heads out of the sand, because Wall Street is the real power station behind anything the CIA could ever afford to pull off, or the FBI, for that matter. "I have believed for years that the U-2 incident was an important event for Kennedy on his road to the White House. Being privy to the type of information that was available to Johnson in his position of power in the Senate, Johnson may have been easily led to "jump on the bandwagon" of the person (Kennedy) who had been "selected" to be the next President by the power elite. Johnson may also have realized that if Kennedy stumbled along the way this group of the "power elite" would have a reliable hand at hand to turn to. This would be especially true if some of the same caliber of people that were suggesting him for the Vice-Presidendcy were amoung the group that had the ability to stage the U-2 incident." Follow the yellow-brick [cobblestone] road.

Terry, do you think T. G. is showing insights here? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6187 ***************************************************** I thought the Arbenz topic had been pretty much answered by R.C.D. Who needed to have it brought up again? If T.G. pisses you off so much, why not throw him off? It's your forum. And, not to change the subject, but I remember a friend of mine by the name of Don Jeffries, being given the heave-ho from this forum by you, for expressing his views on that incarcerated nazi up in Canada. Don was making a case for freedom of speech for this holocaust denier, and questioning Canadian law makers choice for incarceration as opposed to deportation. A similar case to that of Mark Stapleton's concerning the assertions of Michael Collins Piper's regarding the Israeli Mossad's possible complicity in the assassination. Jeffries was polite, never raised a cuss word, or appeared to become beligerent in the presentation of his premise. What was up with that? There seems to be an awful lot of baiting going on in this forum.

FOCUS | William F. Buckley: It Didn't Work http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022506Z.shtml "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes - it is America." William F. Buckley explores the violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq, finding that the "troublemaker in the middle" who is propelling the clash is the interfering United States. __________________________________________________ It Didn't Work By William F. Buckley The National Review Friday 24 February 2006 "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes - it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America." One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that "The bombing has completely demolished" what was being attempted - to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries. Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats. A problem for American policymakers - for President Bush, ultimately - is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed. One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom. The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence. This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail - in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism. Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy. He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. ********************************************************* "The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism." Why not? The "shrine of American idealism" is nothing more than a pillar of salt, lost on the neocon economic philosophy of greed established in the 1980's, culminating in all its "global" glory in the 1990's, and morphing into the out-sourcing monster presently devouring the American manufacturing and industrial base in the 21st Century.

**************************************************** Great subject, John. Great information from Palomara, Bernie. The kind of stuff you can really sink your teeth into.

**************************************************************** "Here is just one scenario: what if there was in fact a plan to "stage" an assassination attempt on JFK and blame it on Castro, a plan hijacked by the conspirators. What would it do to the agency involved should proof of such a scheme be revealed?" "Now just how would those "conspirators" be aware that there was such a "staged" assassination attempt planned, in order to "hijack" it? Surely, that would have been a very closely held secret, and very few persons would be aware of it. Are you suggesting that somebody within the US government was loose-lipped in the wrong quarters? Or are you suggesting that somebody within the US government arranged for that "hijacking?" By God, we might actually be making some progess with our recalcitrant "researcher" after all!" "Or what if Oswald was in fact a CIA or military intelligence agent? Then documents might need to remain classified lest they prove that, previously, our government lied to us." "Oh, Lord, who is this Key West radical who dares suggest that he and his fellow citizens might actually be lied to by their own government? Does he not realize his government is in the hands of honourable men? Does he dare suggest that somebody within that government would ever stoop to employing, for any purpose, a semi-literate, maladjusted Marxist Marine malcontent? Why, the next thing you know, this Key West firebrand will have the temerity to suggest that somebody within the US government was responsible for killing Kennedy and using this Oswald chap as a scapegoat." "These conspiracy theorists just get nuttier every day, don't they?" Yes, R.C.D. Could there be such things as miracles, after all? Or, could it possibly be that T.G. might be more amenable to the "Left's" side of the spectrum than originally thought? If I happen to treasure the jewels of wisdom I'm able to glean from both of your parleys, who's to say T.G. might not be above gaining insight, as well? Conservative progressivism, per chance?

************************************************************ "On the contrary, CIA's mission was to overthrow a government under whose agrarian land reforms "large Guatemalan landholders and the United Fruit Company would be victimized." Yet, all Arbenz wanted from United Fruit was for them to pay their fair share of taxes [heaven forbid!], and that it sell to the Arbenz regime the land that it allowed to lie fallow solely to keep it from the hands of its own commercial competitors, thereby giving it a monopoly control of the means of production. By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way." I am so ashamed to be an American, I'm ready to ex-patriate to Cuba. Aren't there any international laws against the tactics employed by the CIA and the United Fruit Company? What about these large Guatemalan landholders? How were they able to acquire this property, by ancestral occupation, or by eminent domain? And, the CIA documents are outrageous! Were there no international monitors in place to oversee what was about to transpire? No international tribunals in effect to address plans of premeditated murder about to be carried out against a democratically elected government official in a foreign country, by U.S. employed mechanics? No laws to protect the sovereignty of a nation-state? Am I the only one appalled by this blatant act of aggression perpetrated against the democratically elected government and the people of Guatemala? Corporate profiteering, piracy, and murder, allowed to be bought and paid for with the taxes of, and [to add insult to injury] in the name of, the people of the United States? ****************************************** Yippee!!!

Terry, Just curious who do you think is "blowing smoke out his ass" on the Z-film debate? Len ********************************************* To tell you the truth Len, I was attempting to use that expression as an example of how threads may eventually fall into deterioration when posters of opposing views begin using metaphors as a way of describing what they perceive to be their opponent's ineptitude at explaining their methodology, especially coming from the photographic analysis sector of the assassination. And, let me make this perfectly clear that I'm in no way trying to absolve myself of being guilty of the very same said tactics, either. As far as whom I think is "blowing smoke out his ass", I believe most of us, not all, but a sizable grouping, could be held accountable if we took the time to scrutinize our assertions and responses, especially when taken in the heat of battle. I specifically omitted using "in the heat of debate" because once we've resorted to slinging barbs and arrows such as the proverbial, "blowing smoke out his ass", there's no longer any viable form of debate taking place. As I stated yesterday to John Simkin, as well as in a couple of other threads, I'd prefer to educate myself by observing the techniques employed while observing Gratz and Dunne in action. I don't need the ulcers brought on by the Zapruder free-for-all, anymore. So, you can stick a fork in me. I'm done.

*********************************************************88 "I agree with you about Tim being a decent person. As for a good debater, nope. Watching Tim's debates with RCD is just watching Tim run away. The list of questions Tim leaves unanswered is long." But, that was the beauty of the art. Convincing someone of the other possibilities, yet bringing the correct observations into view. The word here is "correct" which I believe R.C.D. to be masterful at this task. As I stated in another thread, I foolishly believed that we somehow could all reach a common ground through the art of constructive debate exhibited by R.C.D.'s rebuttals and corrections of Gratz's perceptions, with the distinct possibility of a positive response or understanding eventually emanating from Gratz's position. When Gratz expounds about Castro, I can't believe anyone could actually take him seriously, but if people find him to be so annoying and irritating, why not choose to enable the "IGNORE" function this forum has provided for that specific purpose. Personally, yet foolishly, I had believed that Gratz was simply "that-fascist-everybody-just-loved-to-hate", and found him to be alot more amusing and witty, than an actual perceived threat, pest, or annoyance. His avoidance of the members' pointed questions should've been taken for what it was, "blowing smoke out his ass". Which is how another member of this forum has taken to castigating an opponent of his regarding the Zapruder Film of that thread. And, as I've stated to Robert Howard in another thread. Since my outside studies have bitten into the amount of time I used to be able to spend going over the threads here, at The Education Forum, I've voluntarily chosen to limit my opinions, if not keep them to myself, in order to avoid any more alarmed observations, of which a few of my friends have pointed out to me, seemed as "unwarranted support" of Tim Gratz. So carry on without my verbal input, my friend. Apparently it will be greatly appreciated.

Talk about pathetic, here's Robert bringing back a thread from last summer to continue to prosecute the Shanet Clark brouhaha, caring ever so much about Mr. Clark while at the same time demonstrating overtly that he hasn't just missed that "Shanet had posted to the Forum lately," but has missed Shanet's numerous posts generally. It's a shame that Robert further needed to turn this so-called "real event" of his own making into an opportunity to add even more insult to injury, this time targeted at Terry Mauro. T.C. Yeah, well if that dribble you just wrote is your reality then you are a sick SOB, clown. First, you are putting words in my mouth and presuming to divine my intentions in the process. If you powers of comprehension were better, you might notice that I already stated why I added to this post, and it was not to 'prosecute the Shanet Clark brouhaha' that I was not even aware of in the first place. Second, Terry makes an insulting remark about my not noticing that Shanet had posted over the last few months, I defend myself, and you start in on me. Have you ever made a mistake? Would you like it if somebody started attacking you over it? Hopefully you would not like it, and neither do I. I would add that this xxxx really galls me, I mean if you have personal problems, don't take it out on me, go kick your dog. If everybody is in a f****** uproar over adding to this thread. The solution is simple. Stop posting! ***************************************************** "But I do apologize if anyone has suffered through the trauma of the resurrected post." Then, maybe I should apologize for not understanding your intentions in the first place, R.H. But then again, it's been brought to my attention by a few of my friends, that my support of Tim Gratz is inappropriate, to say the least. It's a shame since apparently my current outside studies have not afforded me the time I normally used to have, to peruse the forum in the depth I had been accustomed to in the past. And, I suppose this led me to assume that we were all on par with one another on the LBJ/Cheney thread, which I picked up on, a couple of days back. Therefore, shame on me to ever become so naive as to expect any of us to ever be able to get along, see eye-to-eye, nor be able to work together in any form or assemblance of cohesiveness. In the future, I'll remember to keep my opinions to myself, and lose any pollyanna hopes of learning via comparative/diversive analysis. Thank you.

********************************************* "The question is why does the United States provide Israel $5-$6 Billion in aid and weapon systems (including nuclear weapons that are considered "safe for civilians") and now we consider witholding $250 Million for the Palestinians when Hamas wins a democratic election in their country or territory?" More like 11 billion in 1994 from what I was reading back then. I'm sure it's closer to 20 billion today, accounting for inflation.

*************************************************** "Who killed Jesus? I did, Ron, for He had to die to pay the sacrifice for MY sins. The true "Ultimate Sacrifice"." But, I thought He died for the sins of the Jews. At least, that's what they taught us in Catholic School.

******************************************************* "Wonder why he is more concerned with defending Castro than he is with defending Israel? Or can we infer he agrees with Piper?" Come on now, T.G. Give him a chance to get home from work. After all, he might be out of town on business, or having to make some kind of a deadline. Besides, he puts alot of thought into his postings. Quite methodical, and very accurate. Someone I'd hope we'd all be learning a thing or two from. Anyway, in due time. So, don't get your skivvies in an uproar just yet. Remember, you two guys are role models, and excellent ones, at that. Sincerely and very truly yours, LaFemme Nikita

***************************************************** "Interesting post. Meyer Lansky remains something of a shadowy figure to me." Forgive me for coming in on this thread over a week later but, I found this review from James Richards url to be quite interesting: The Last Word on the JFK Assassination November 28, 2002 Reviewer: Mark Braver from Chicago, Illinois There seems to be a lot of misperception of what Final Judgment does and does not say about the JFK assassination. The book does not say that "the Jews killed JFK." That's horse manure. What the book does say is that: When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA. The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons. In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening — and fully documented — detail. For example, did you know: That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. [Middle] East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival? That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel? That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky? That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination? Why didn't Oliver Stone, in his famous movie "JFK" not mention any of this? It turns out the chief financial backer of Stone's film was longtime Mossad figure, Arnon Milchan, Israel's biggest arms dealer. The very fact that the Israeli lobby has gone through such great lengths to try to smear Michael Collins Piper and to try to discredit Final Judgment gives the book great credibility. If the book was really so silly or so unconvincing, it doesn't seem likely that groups such as the Anti-Defamation League would go out of their way to try to suppress the book as they have. The fact is that Piper demonstrates that Israel did indeed have a very strong motive to want to get JFK out of the way and that numerous people who have been linked in other writings to the JFK conspiracy were (as Piper documents) also in the sphere of influence of Israel's Mossad. Not only Clay Shaw in New Orleans, but also James Angleton at the CIA, who was Israel's strongest advocate at the CIA and also the CIA's liaison to the Mossad. The Israeli connection is indeed "the missing link in the JFK assassination conspiracy." The "Reader from Chicago" who wrote the review of Final Judgment posted here is really off the beam and I suspect he (or she) is deliberately distorting what Piper's book does say in order to try to discourage people from reading it. The fact is that Piper's book documents (quite clearly, in my estimation) not only the means, opportunity and the motive for Israeli Mossad involvement in the assassination (working in conjunction with the CIA), but it is also quite fascinating and very interesting read. "Boring" is the last word I'd use to describe the book, and it is certainly not "poorly written." What's more, the book is not — I repeat — not "anti-Semitic" and the book has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Holocaust. In fact, anybody familiar with any of the standard writings on the JFK assassination will recognize the names of some of the key players in the scenario Piper documents: Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister and James J. Angleton of the CIA — and none of them were Jewish. So where this reviewer gets off saying that Piper finds "a Jew under every rock" is beyond me. I have read literally hundreds of books and magazine articles and other material on the JFK assassination and not in a single one of them — with the exception of Final Judgment — did I ever learn that President John F. Kennedy was trying to stop Israel from building the nuclear bomb and that this literally touched off a "secret war" behind the scenes between JFK and Israel's prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who resigned (among other reasons) in disgust over JFK's policies with Israel. In fact, Israeli historian Avner Cohen in his book, Israel and the Bomb, documents this quite thoroughly. And in Final Judgment Piper also outlines some interesting Israeli connections by people who have been linked to the JFK assassination and cover-up, including Clay Shaw of New Orleans. Even Israeli journalist Barry Chamish has written in an Internet review of Final Judgment that he finds Piper's Israeli connection (via Shaw and Permindex) quite convincing. There was a controversy in the Chicago area following an attempt by the Anti-Defamation League (an Israeli lobby organization) and people associated with the ADL to prevent Final Judgment from being placed in the Schaumburg Township District Library. Chances are the Reader from Chicago is probably an ADL representative! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Terry, I've read that before but its interesting to read it again. I had a bio of Meyer Lansky which I've lost but it had photos of Lansky in Israel. Lansky tried to emigrate there late in his life but the Israeli Government rejected his application. **************************************************** "Lansky tried to emigrate there late in his life but the Israeli Government rejected his application." Yeah, maybe his money was no longer considered "legit" enough for the newly acquired ambiance Israel attained once they reached the status of "just another nuclear power player". This thread has definitely peked my interest, so I'm heading back to page 4, following this brief foray through a couple of the other threads. It's so nice having a day off, even if I'm suffering through one of the worst asthma attacks I've had in years. I do get a chance to play catch-up, though. But, what a way to have rate a day off.

************************************************************** "Resurrecting his apology/departure in order to advance a vendetta against Tim Gratz demeans Shanet as well as Tim. T.C." Exactly. Because weren't we all just on the Cheney post yesterday? You, me, T.G., Dawn, and Stephen? So, unless I'm back-peddling dangerously close to the Twilight Zone, I could've sworn we were all yukking it up about Cheney over on that recent thread. ************************************************** "I just didn't remember seeing any posts by Shanet in quite a while, and I always liked him. Geez" And, he posted right up behind you and T.C., Mr. Howard. Shanet Clark Yesterday, 03:03 AM Post #15 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 1220 Joined: 13-October 04 From: Atlanta, Dekalb Co., Georgia, USA Member No.: 1708 Cheney admits to "one beer"......... Tim Carroll is right, this looks like a classic juvenile cover up....... -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1900

***************************************************** "Interesting post. Meyer Lansky remains something of a shadowy figure to me." Forgive me for coming in on this thread over a week later but, I found this review from James Richards url to be quite interesting: The Last Word on the JFK Assassination November 28, 2002 Reviewer: Mark Braver from Chicago, Illinois There seems to be a lot of misperception of what Final Judgment does and does not say about the JFK assassination. The book does not say that "the Jews killed JFK." That's horse manure. What the book does say is that: When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA. The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons. In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening — and fully documented — detail. For example, did you know: That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. [Middle] East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival? That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel? That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky? That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination? Why didn't Oliver Stone, in his famous movie "JFK" not mention any of this? It turns out the chief financial backer of Stone's film was longtime Mossad figure, Arnon Milchan, Israel's biggest arms dealer. The very fact that the Israeli lobby has gone through such great lengths to try to smear Michael Collins Piper and to try to discredit Final Judgment gives the book great credibility. If the book was really so silly or so unconvincing, it doesn't seem likely that groups such as the Anti-Defamation League would go out of their way to try to suppress the book as they have. The fact is that Piper demonstrates that Israel did indeed have a very strong motive to want to get JFK out of the way and that numerous people who have been linked in other writings to the JFK conspiracy were (as Piper documents) also in the sphere of influence of Israel's Mossad. Not only Clay Shaw in New Orleans, but also James Angleton at the CIA, who was Israel's strongest advocate at the CIA and also the CIA's liaison to the Mossad. The Israeli connection is indeed "the missing link in the JFK assassination conspiracy." The "Reader from Chicago" who wrote the review of Final Judgment posted here is really off the beam and I suspect he (or she) is deliberately distorting what Piper's book does say in order to try to discourage people from reading it. The fact is that Piper's book documents (quite clearly, in my estimation) not only the means, opportunity and the motive for Israeli Mossad involvement in the assassination (working in conjunction with the CIA), but it is also quite fascinating and very interesting read. "Boring" is the last word I'd use to describe the book, and it is certainly not "poorly written." What's more, the book is not — I repeat — not "anti-Semitic" and the book has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Holocaust. In fact, anybody familiar with any of the standard writings on the JFK assassination will recognize the names of some of the key players in the scenario Piper documents: Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister and James J. Angleton of the CIA — and none of them were Jewish. So where this reviewer gets off saying that Piper finds "a Jew under every rock" is beyond me. I have read literally hundreds of books and magazine articles and other material on the JFK assassination and not in a single one of them — with the exception of Final Judgment — did I ever learn that President John F. Kennedy was trying to stop Israel from building the nuclear bomb and that this literally touched off a "secret war" behind the scenes between JFK and Israel's prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who resigned (among other reasons) in disgust over JFK's policies with Israel. In fact, Israeli historian Avner Cohen in his book, Israel and the Bomb, documents this quite thoroughly. And in Final Judgment Piper also outlines some interesting Israeli connections by people who have been linked to the JFK assassination and cover-up, including Clay Shaw of New Orleans. Even Israeli journalist Barry Chamish has written in an Internet review of Final Judgment that he finds Piper's Israeli connection (via Shaw and Permindex) quite convincing. There was a controversy in the Chicago area following an attempt by the Anti-Defamation League (an Israeli lobby organization) and people associated with the ADL to prevent Final Judgment from being placed in the Schaumburg Township District Library. Chances are the Reader from Chicago is probably an ADL representative! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is of course this incident that began my conflict with Tim Gratz. ******************************************************* "It is of course this incident that began my conflict with Tim Gratz." But, I still don't understand why this thread was resurrected? I was under the impression that Shanet was still posting on the forum, as of February 2006.

********************************************************* "Just about all were grouped around Ghandi." And, I couldn't think of a more finer human being. Right up there with JFK, MLK, and those who've paid the price for freedom of the human spirit. "Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground. Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."

___________________________________________ Robert, Great post. Unfortunately, this seems to be Gratz's modus operandi whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often. FWIW, Thomas ___________________________________________ ******************************************************** "whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often." But, seriously Thomas. I don't think T.G. exhibits any need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking. After all is said and done, I haven't really noted any vitriolic outbursts, nor any overly condescending verbal abuse coming from his quarter. In fact, I've learned quite a bit from reading the exchanges between T.G. and Robert Charles Dunne. They're both truly gifted in the art of debate. It's an education in, and of, itself. Wouldn't you agree? ___________________________________________________ Hi Terry, OK, they are both "truly gifted in the art of debate," but they are different. Robert is a true debater whereas I would put Gratz in the category of a smooth-talking salesman. Gratz is always saying things like "Of course,..." or "Clearly,..." or "You do, do you not...?" or "You would agree, would you not...?" Jeez, reminds me of Joseph McCarthy asking someone on TV, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" LOL I do think Gratz is trying to "convert" others to his way of thinking on this Forum. Otherwise, why would he post so goshdarn often?? Hell, I know when someone is trying to "convert" me. One of my relatives is a Bircher and when I was younger that person was continually trying to get me to "see the light," so I know what a "converter" does-- they just keep hammerin' away! It's their "mission" in life, their "calling," if you will. I've never accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts" (that I can remember). I just don't like his slippery tendency of making an assertion without offering proof of that assertion modus operandi (see Robert's post #7 again, if necessary) coupled which the above-mentioned "McCarthey" style and the fact that he posts so damn often and, as John says in post #14, he often suggests or even claims that those who disagree with him on this Forum are anti-American or unpatriotic. I think Gratz is here to stay, however. He seems to enjoy being on the defensive.... FWIW, Thomas ___________________________________________________ ******************************************************* "I do think Gratz is trying to "convert" others to his way of thinking on this Forum. Otherwise, why would he post so goshdarn often?? Hell, I know when someone is trying to "convert" me. One of my relatives is a Bircher and when I was younger that person was continually trying to get me to "see the light," so I know what a "converter" does-- they just keep hammerin' away! It's their "mission" in life, their "calling," if you will." Nah, I don't think he's trying to convert anybody to anything. He's simply stating his case, yet welcoming all comers to challenge it, possibly in the event their point of view might coincidentally change his, if anything. Who knows, maybe we'll be able to find a common ground on Simkins' forum from which to alter the course of party politics, by brain-storming our way to a greater "democratic republic" coalition, of sorts? "I've never accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts" (that I can remember). I just don't like his slippery tendency of making an assertion without offering proof of that assertion modus operandi (see Robert's post #7 again, if necessary) coupled which the above-mentioned "McCarthey" style and the fact that he posts so damn often and, as John says in post #14, he often suggests or even claims that those who disagree with him on this Forum are anti-American or unpatriotic." I never meant to say that you accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts", I was merely drawing an analogy between T.G.'s and R.C.D.'s excellent debating skills, as opposed to some of the other debaters on the different threads of the assassination section of The Education Forum, myself included. Remember the Foster threads? I'm excessively guilty of extreme vitriolic outbursts, when presented with blatant stupidity! Whereas, T.G. and R.C.D. exhibit exceptionally well-constructed, thoroughly researched data, and counter one another with equal adeptness. At least, it appears that way, IMHO. I'm also of the impression that T.G. sometimes laces his statements with quite a bit of drollery, and if one isn't aware of the subtley of his humor may, in fact, take it as an affrontery. This is how I've come to understand T.G., and therefore changed my approach, as well as, support of him. Whenever he's been countered for calling someone anti-American, or unpatriotic, I have to laugh because I don't take it seriously. And, when he's been called out for buffoonery, I consider that even more laughable. I really believe he takes it all in stride, and still remains a gentleman. Plus the fact, there are far less worthy, possibly more insidious, and even dangerous individuals lurking on the internet, and on this forum, than T.G., IMO.

*************************************************** "This is progressive and should be noted. The ability to see the subtle distinctions are important in this investigation.(IMO)" It sure would be neat if we could all meet on a common ground of progressivism whilst blurring the distinctions between our socialistic vs fascistic, conservative vs liberal, right vs left, democratic vs republican, lines of battle. I specifically omitted "communism" which I believe to be a bastardized version of the "left" line of philosophy much as I view "nazism" as a bastardized hybrid of the "right" attempting to pass itself off as a sheep-dipped [for lack of a better metaphor] version of Mussolini's and Hitler's "brown-shirted" brigades.

It is of course easy to admit to mistakes made 40 years ago. Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today? *********************************************************** "Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today?" I'd pretty much call it a draw, so far.

****************************************************** "A letter writer in the NY Times raised what I thought was an interesting point. Since hunting accidents do happen, why did the SS allow Cheney to participate in what can be a dangerous sport?" Especially, since he's proven to be an even poorer marksman than LHO! He shouldn't be able to own a hunting license, let alone carry a gun.

************************************************* "Shanet you need to come back because if you don't you are going to miss out on what promises to be the most interesting period, of the Forum's history. Come back Shane(t)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" But Robert, that thread was from July 2005? Where did he post that he's leaving, in February 2006? Am I missing something here?