Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[John Simkin]

I have just been reminded of another quotation that should be applied to this discussion.

"Truth is not established by prohibitions and punishments, but in a free and open encounter with falsehood." (John Milton, Areopagitica)

This system seems to have worked very well in dealing with Michael Collins Piper.

[Tim Gratz]

On that I agree with you John.

I also think it incredible that people can be jailed for publishing heretical views, even if they can be considered hateful.

[Guest]

On that I agree with you John.

I also think it incredible that people can be jailed for publishing heretical views, even if they can be considered hateful.

What if Weimar Germany had had suitably rigorous laws concerning inciting racial hatred?

[Mark Stapleton]

Gerry Hemming has reminded me that his primary contact for access to the Kennedy White House was a New York financier named Theodore Racoosin who was very close to the Kennedys. Racoosin was known as one of the five founders of the State of Israel.

There is a professional "chair" named for Racoosin at the respected Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovet, Israel.

There is also a Theodore Racoosin Chair of Talmud and Rabbincs at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

New York University has a program of Theodore Racoosin scholars.

Clearly Mr. Racoosin was a remarkable man.

Does it make any sense whatsoever that Israel would kill a President who was so closely affiliated with one of its founders? Of course not.

Now it's TWO books demolishing Piper's book? It's becoming a virtual avalanche. Excellent timing, I must say. No coincidences there.

Theodore Racoosin, eh? Gerry's point man at the White House, was he? So this means Racoosin and JFK were like blood brothers, eh? In the same way that C Douglas Dillon and JFK were like blood brothers, is that what you mean?

I've heard his name before so I did a search on Google to refresh my memory. He gets a mention in Hinckle's "The fish is red" and William Turner's "Rear Window". If anyone has read these I would be keen to know in what context he is mentioned. He is also mentioned in the book which is the title of this thread.

The most interesting thing was that I checked in Dallek's bio of JFK, "JFK-An unfinished life"---800 pages long and a great read if you're a fan of JFK like me, and guess what? That's right, nothing. Not a sausage. Not even a passing mention of JFK's recently discovered dear friend.

p.s. Way to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Tim. Just post all these new discoveries on three different threads, using different bits on each thread. Kind of like immersing the Forum in a fog. However, some can see through it.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Gerry Hemming has reminded me that his primary contact for access to the Kennedy White House was a New York financier named Theodore Racoosin who was very close to the Kennedys. Racoosin was known as one of the five founders of the State of Israel.

There is a professional "chair" named for Racoosin at the respected Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovet, Israel.

There is also a Theodore Racoosin Chair of Talmud and Rabbincs at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

New York University has a program of Theodore Racoosin scholars.

Clearly Mr. Racoosin was a remarkable man.

Does it make any sense whatsoever that Israel would kill a President who was so closely affiliated with one of its founders? Of course not.

Now it's TWO books demolishing Piper's book? It's becoming a virtual avalanche. Excellent timing, I must say. No coincidences there.

Theodore Racoosin, eh? Gerry's point man at the White House, was he? So this means Racoosin and JFK were like blood brothers, eh? In the same way that C Douglas Dillon and JFK were like blood brothers, is that what you mean?

I've heard his name before so I did a search on Google to refresh my memory. He gets a mention in Hinckle's "The fish is red" and William Turner's "Rear Window". If anyone has read these I would be keen to know in what context he is mentioned. He is also mentioned in the book which is the title of this thread.

In the update of "The Fish Is Red" called "Deadly Secrets," Racoosin is, indeed, depicted as a side-door entry into the White House. Apparently Gerry Hemming's boy Howard Davis wanted the White House to know what had just been learned from Eddie "Bayo" Perez - that two Soviet Colonels in Cuba knew where nukes were hidden in Cuba after they'd purportedly all been removed, and wanted to defect to the US - so Davis approached Racoosin to pass the word along. Racoosin initially said the White House was very interested in details, so much so, in fact, that "a high official" inside the WH suggested - via Racoosin - that an intelligence operative accompany Perez/Bayo into Cuba to debrief the two Soviets. Bayo declined, saying he no longer trusted CIA.

Racoosin was asked by the White House to organize meetings of anti-Castro leaders to "find out what the CIA was doing. The President, it was said, didn't trust the agency and felt he was receiving bad information." [THE BOOK'S CITED SOURCE: Hemming and Davis]

I have Turner's "Rearview Mirror" here somewhere and will try to find if it includes anything different. Unfortunately, my '93 edition of "FJ" doesn't have an index, so I cannot easily locate in it whatever it may include on Racoosin.

The most interesting thing was that I checked in Dallek's bio of JFK, "JFK-An unfinished life"---800 pages long and a great read if you're a fan of JFK like me, and guess what? That's right, nothing. Not a sausage. Not even a passing mention of JFK's recently discovered dear friend.

p.s. Way to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Tim. Just post all these new discoveries on three different threads, using different bits on each thread. Kind of like immersing the Forum in a fog. However, some can see through it.

Mark, you must have those special 3-D glasses that allow one to see through the billows of puffery that sprout up here, courtesy of our "Key West Israel expert." Might I borrow them some time?

[Mark Stapleton]

Gerry Hemming has reminded me that his primary contact for access to the Kennedy White House was a New York financier named Theodore Racoosin who was very close to the Kennedys. Racoosin was known as one of the five founders of the State of Israel.

There is a professional "chair" named for Racoosin at the respected Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovet, Israel.

There is also a Theodore Racoosin Chair of Talmud and Rabbincs at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

New York University has a program of Theodore Racoosin scholars.

Clearly Mr. Racoosin was a remarkable man.

Does it make any sense whatsoever that Israel would kill a President who was so closely affiliated with one of its founders? Of course not.

Now it's TWO books demolishing Piper's book? It's becoming a virtual avalanche. Excellent timing, I must say. No coincidences there.

Theodore Racoosin, eh? Gerry's point man at the White House, was he? So this means Racoosin and JFK were like blood brothers, eh? In the same way that C Douglas Dillon and JFK were like blood brothers, is that what you mean?

I've heard his name before so I did a search on Google to refresh my memory. He gets a mention in Hinckle's "The fish is red" and William Turner's "Rear Window". If anyone has read these I would be keen to know in what context he is mentioned. He is also mentioned in the book which is the title of this thread.

In the update of "The Fish Is Red" called "Deadly Secrets," Racoosin is, indeed, depicted as a side-door entry into the White House. Apparently Gerry Hemming's boy Howard Davis wanted the White House to know what had just been learned from Eddie "Bayo" Perez - that two Soviet Colonels in Cuba knew where nukes were hidden in Cuba after they'd purportedly all been removed, and wanted to defect to the US - so Davis approached Racoosin to pass the word along. Racoosin initially said the White House was very interested in details, so much so, in fact, that "a high official" inside the WH suggested - via Racoosin - that an intelligence operative accompany Perez/Bayo into Cuba to debrief the two Soviets. Bayo declined, saying he no longer trusted CIA.

Racoosin was asked by the White House to organize meetings of anti-Castro leaders to "find out what the CIA was doing. The President, it was said, didn't trust the agency and felt he was receiving bad information." [THE BOOK'S CITED SOURCE: Hemming and Davis]

I have Turner's "Rearview Mirror" here somewhere and will try to find if it includes anything different. Unfortunately, my '93 edition of "FJ" doesn't have an index, so I cannot easily locate in it whatever it may include on Racoosin.

The most interesting thing was that I checked in Dallek's bio of JFK, "JFK-An unfinished life"---800 pages long and a great read if you're a fan of JFK like me, and guess what? That's right, nothing. Not a sausage. Not even a passing mention of JFK's recently discovered dear friend.

p.s. Way to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Tim. Just post all these new discoveries on three different threads, using different bits on each thread. Kind of like immersing the Forum in a fog. However, some can see through it.

Mark, you must have those special 3-D glasses that allow one to see through the billows of puffery that sprout up here, courtesy of our "Key West Israel expert." Might I borrow them some time?

Robert,

Thanks for that. Billows of puffery is the perfect expression for what Tim's trying to run past the Forum here.

Racoosin's an interesting character. A New York banker and financier who was apparently deeply enmeshed in the intelligence milieu. Perhaps he deserves much further scrutiny. Good work, Tim.

Often I don't really feel like respnding to some of Tim's posts. Some have such a tenuous link to reality that they are almost laughable, like the many he has posted in support of the Castro did it theory. Trouble is, I have to because if I don't, Tim will consider his highly dubious suppositions to be unchallenged and will later cite them as undisputed facts. He's a slippery one, our Tim.

p.s. Judging by the way you have effectively flayed Tim in regard to his rubbish concerning Castro, I wouldn't have thought you needed any 3-D glasses. Your vision's fine.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark S wrote:

p.s. Judging by the way you have effectively flayed Tim in regard to his rubbish concerning Castro, I wouldn't have thought you needed any 3-D glasses

How laughable. Mark S believes that Israel, who was one of America's best friends, killed Kennedy while he dismisses as "rubbish" the scenario that Castro, the sworn enemy of both the US and JFK (who called JFK such things as a "cretin" and "American's version of Batista"), and whom the US was itself trying to kill, killed Kennedy to prevent his own assassination.

Mark, I know you live "down under". Are you possibly standing on your head down there?

Edited February 23, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Mark S wrote:

p.s. Judging by the way you have effectively flayed Tim in regard to his rubbish concerning Castro, I wouldn't have thought you needed any 3-D glasses

How laughable. Mark S believes that Israel, who was one of America's best friends, killed Kennedy while he dismisses as "rubbish" the scenario that Castro, the sworn enemy of both the US and JFK (who called JFK such things as a "cretin" and "American's version of Batista"), and whom the US was itself trying to kill, killed Kennedy to prevent his own assassination.

He's hardly alone in dismissing as "rubbish" your raison d'etre. Your fan club of one seems to have limped back to his trailer park.

However, as per your other contention - "Mark S. believes that Israel... killed Kennedy" - you've oversimplified something into farce, yet again, knowingly, deliberately, and - as ever - falsely.

If somebody says they think Douglas Dillon is not above suspicion, you get your knickers in a knot and demand to know the proof for so preposterous a notion. How dare anyone make such charges?

In this case, you've rejected the hypothesis of "FJ," and assailed any and all comers. [One notes that you have not posted anything indicating that you've actually read the book - "It has been a while since I scanned the book" - which puts you rather at odds with your own eternal advice to others.]

You've previously stated repeatedly that you're absolutely convinced that OC played a major role in the assassination. But your depiction of OC is strictly Italian apparently: the only names you mention end in a vowel. No room in your OC for Rothman, Lansky, Siegel, Cohen, et al, despite their well-documented prominence within OC.

When I avoided this thread, you "inferred" that my absence meant I agreed with the book, and perhaps by using guilt by association you could depict me as a leperous anti-Semite of MCP's ilk. That was a real nifty piece of deduction on your part, Sherlock, and I just hope you're rightly proud of trading in such gratuitous slurs, based on nothing but your own imagination.

You must be, because you're back at it again, this time with Mark S. Remedial reading time for you, Timmy Boy. What was Mark's very first post? "I haven't read it but I've read several reviews including the link which James posted. While I don't agree with Piper's theory that Israel masterminded the assassination, the idea that they played a role can't be discounted."

So what do we have: Tim, who hasn't read a book based on an a priori dismissal of its premise, assailing Mark because - although he hasn't read the same book, and though he's already stated he doesn't agree with its central premise - won't dismiss the possibility of some involvement. In order to do so, Tim wrongly asserts what Mark "believes" - despite having every reason to know better - and thereby uses to the broad anti-Semite brush against our esteemed Australian contributor too.

This is the self-same Tim Gratz who admonishes others to keep their mouths shut about books they have not read, but now pontificates about a book that he hasn't read. This is the self-same Tim Gratz who assails others for making baseless ad hominem attacks, yet feels no compunction about baselessly tossing about epithets like "anti-Semite" and implying the worst about others, including - in my case - somebody who hadn't written a word on the topic. [While I don't support the book's central premise either, I at least read the book before reaching that conclusion.]

Mark, I know you live "down under". Are you possibly standing on your head down there?

This, from the same Tim Gratz who infers an "anti-American" bias from "foreigners." Can't imagine why anybody'd be biased against a polite young man such as yourself, Tim. Your manners and etiquette are just so fetching.

Having brought the foregoing to Forum members' attention, can I now expect to read a post about how I "bait" you?

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark S wrote:

p.s. Judging by the way you have effectively flayed Tim in regard to his rubbish concerning Castro, I wouldn't have thought you needed any 3-D glasses

How laughable. Mark S believes that Israel, who was one of America's best friends, killed Kennedy while he dismisses as "rubbish" the scenario that Castro, the sworn enemy of both the US and JFK (who called JFK such things as a "cretin" and "American's version of Batista"), and whom the US was itself trying to kill, killed Kennedy to prevent his own assassination.

He's hardly alone in dismissing as "rubbish" your raison d'etre. Your fan club of one seems to have limped back to his trailer park.

However, as per your other contention - "Mark S. believes that Israel... killed Kennedy" - you've oversimplified something into farce, yet again, knowingly, deliberately, and - as ever - falsely.

If somebody says they think Douglas Dillon is not above suspicion, you get your knickers in a knot and demand to know the proof for so preposterous a notion. How dare anyone make such charges?

In this case, you've rejected the hypothesis of "FJ," and assailed any and all comers. [One notes that you have not posted anything indicating that you've actually read the book - "It has been a while since I scanned the book" - which puts you rather at odds with your own eternal advice to others.]

You've previously stated repeatedly that you're absolutely convinced that OC played a major role in the assassination. But your depiction of OC is strictly Italian apparently: the only names you mention end in a vowel. No room in your OC for Rothman, Lansky, Siegel, Cohen, et al, despite their well-documented prominence within OC.

When I avoided this thread, you "inferred" that my absence meant I agreed with the book, and perhaps by using guilt by association you could depict me as a leperous anti-Semite of MCP's ilk. That was a real nifty piece of deduction on your part, Sherlock, and I just hope you're rightly proud of trading in such gratuitous slurs, based on nothing but your own imagination.

You must be, because you're back at it again, this time with Mark S. Remedial reading time for you, Timmy Boy. What was Mark's very first post? "I haven't read it but I've read several reviews including the link which James posted. While I don't agree with Piper's theory that Israel masterminded the assassination, the idea that they played a role can't be discounted."

So what do we have: Tim, who hasn't read a book based on an a priori dismissal of its premise, assailing Mark because - although he hasn't read the same book, and though he's already stated he doesn't agree with its central premise - won't dismiss the possibility of some involvement. In order to do so, Tim wrongly asserts what Mark "believes" - despite having every reason to know better - and thereby uses to the broad anti-Semite brush against our esteemed Australian contributor too.

This is the self-same Tim Gratz who admonishes others to keep their mouths shut about books they have not read, but now pontificates about a book that he hasn't read. This is the self-same Tim Gratz who assails others for making baseless ad hominem attacks, yet feels no compunction about baselessly tossing about epithets like "anti-Semite" and implying the worst about others, including - in my case - somebody who hadn't written a word on the topic. [While I don't support the book's central premise either, I at least read the book before reaching that conclusion.]

Mark, I know you live "down under". Are you possibly standing on your head down there?

This, from the same Tim Gratz who infers an "anti-American" bias from "foreigners." Can't imagine why anybody'd be biased against a polite young man such as yourself, Tim. Your manners and etiquette are just so fetching.

Having brought the foregoing to Forum members' attention, can I now expect to read a post about how I "bait" you?

Tim,

Here in Australia we have a game called "cricket" (England tries to play it too, sorry John and Steve).

What happens is, when the batsman gets clean bowled--and the middle wooden stump cartwheels at great speed into the air--the batsman is out and must leave the field and return to the pavillion. Robert just clean bowled you. You have a missing stump.

Gloating isn't productive or helpful so I want to say that I re-read parts of Cohen's book and believe it reveals the reason for Israel's acquisition of Hawk missiles from the Kennedy Administration.

Cohen states, pp116-117:

"In the July 1962 Revolution Day parade, Egypt, for the first time displayed ballistic missiles, boasting they could cover every point "south of Beirut". Israel knew that Egypt began a missile project by recruiting German rocket scientists in Europe but the public display of the missiles (they were only prototypes) alarmed the Israeli defense establishment. Though Israel had launched its own Shavit II missile with great publicity a year earlier, it was merely an experimental meteorological rocket. In July 1962 Israel had no significant ballistic missile program of its own and all of a sudden it "discovered" its own "missile gap".

In mid August 1962, JFK sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft the a deal that would tie the US supply of Air Defense Hawk missiles to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem. I may have said 1961 in an earlier post but it was 1962, making the sale of Hawk missiles a natural consequence of impending UAR missile procurement.

The other point is that they were "air defense" missiles which, I assume, have no attack capability. I'm only guessing here but it seems out of character for JFK to arm Israel for a missile war. So it appears that JFK was responding to Israel's legitimate concerns about a possible UAR missile strike. Remember, Israel's reactor at Dimona was still in the development stage and not expected to be fully operational "until late 1964".

So JFK wasn't forging a unique alliance with Israel or showing any particular favoritism. Israel suddenly discovered its own missile gap and JFK responded with "defense" missiles with strings attached.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest Stephen Turner]

,

Here in Australia we have a game called "cricket" (England tries to play it too, sorry John and Steve).

Hey Stapleton, consider this your first and only warning

"Final judgement" After 300 plus replies this is turning out to be a longer judgement than the McLibel trial.

[Mark Stapleton]

,

Here in Australia we have a game called "cricket" (England tries to play it too, sorry John and Steve).

Hey Stapleton, consider this your first and only warning

"Final judgement" After 300 plus replies this is turning out to be a longer judgement than the McLibel trial.

I can't help myself, but I'll look like an idiot if we don't retrieve the Ashes.

[Mark Stapleton]

The high level security dialogue between Israel and the US which took place in two sessions on November 13-14, 1963 (mifgash) was at the request of Israel. This was the one which Deputy Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Chief of Military Intelligence Colonael Aharon Yariv attended.

From Piper, pp170-171:

Just as US representatives would visit Dimona, Israel asked that military officers visit the Sixth Fleet and co-ordinate contingency plans. When Israel conceded to Kennedy's demands on the matter of Dimona, it must have expected that the United States would make good its' commitments to Israel's security.

After the first dialogue had taken place in July 1962, which was meant to be a once only meeting, the idea of regular exchanges was presented to Israeli PM Eshkol by Deputy Ambassador Mordechai Galit in August 1963. The idea was presented to Secretary of State Rusk in late September 1963 and was accepted within weeks. The main issue discussed was the possibility of a surprise attack on Israel by UAR missiles and the outcome of the meeting was that the two parties disagreed on this point.

If this meeting is the only evidence of Israeli participation in JFK's assassination, then it's a pretty thin case, although the Israelis demanded secrecy. It proves no more than the fact that in November 1963, Israel had great concern for its safety. Others factors like LBJ's reversal of the hard line on Dimona are suspicious, IMO, but not conclusive. It's now up to Michael Collins Piper to present additional evidence to support the premise.

[John Simkin]

Here in Australia we have a game called "cricket" (England tries to play it too, sorry John and Steve). What happens is, when the batsman gets clean bowled--and the middle wooden stump cartwheels at great speed into the air--the batsman is out and must leave the field and return to the pavillion. Robert just clean bowled you. You have a missing stump.

He is definitely missing something!

[Ron Ecker]

If this meeting is the only evidence of Israeli participation in JFK's assassination, then it's a pretty thin case, although the Israelis demanded secrecy. It proves no more than the fact that in November 1963, Israel had great concern for its safety.

The meeting could also have been in part an excuse for Rabin to come to DC, and travel on to Dallas, on what his wife called a tour of U.S. military facilities. Rabin never told us what he was doing in Dallas, as he left the whole second half of 1963 out of his autobiography, in which he never even mentions John Kennedy.

[Len Colby]

Mark,

What makes you so sure that Cohen's book is 100% accurate and thus when the other two books contradict it they must be wrong?

You quote Piper's book what was his source?

All - see my post on Tim's "Book" thread that undermines Piper's thesis and I think raises some interesting questions.

Len