Final word on the JFK assassination?:

Social Democracy Now
Final word on the JFK assassination?:
Sun Dec 3, 2006 19:11

Social Democracy Now
Nov 22, 2005 at 10:15 o\clock
Final word on the JFK assassination?: a review of Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment
by: socialdemocracynow


ABOVE: A frame from a film of the assassination depicting the moment JFK was fatally wounded by a gunshot to the head, a moment captured in the famous Polaroid taken by Mary Moorman (the woman in the black overcoat). Unfortunately, this film (like other available footage) has a great many suspicious features, and it cannot be taken for granted that any of the frames it contains, including this one, are authentic. The stocky-looking feminine figure in the bottom right hand corner apparently filming the assassination, the so-called Babushka lady, is not Beverly Oliver, or indeed any other woman, but a male intelligence officer in drag. The film in this camera, which has never been released, almost certainly still exists. Whether in the hands of the CIA or the Mossad, it assuredly shows what really happened that day:

I am something of a connoisseur of the extensive literature of the Kennedy assassination. Over the last few years I have devoured almost every important book on the subject, including, I regret to say, quite a few that I now feel certain were disinformation efforts - for example, Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992) and Barr McClellan's Blood, Money, and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK (2003). Although from a strictly literary standpoint Russell's Man Who Knew Too Much is quite the best book relating to the assassination - I am referring to the tightened-up revised edition published in 2003, not the original loose and baggy monster - the sad fact is that in this work nothing is revealed other than that Richard Case Nagell, the so-called 'man who knew too much' of the book's title, may have known something about the assassination before it occurred. Since we never find out who Nagell was working for - you'd think Russell would have managed to establish at least that fact - there is no reason to credit any of his claims, such as that he went to New Orleans to dissuade Oswald from participating in the assassination and that a photo of himself with Oswald taken on that very occasion is preserved in a secure location outside the United States.

Having read around 120 books on the assassination, I would say that broadly speaking assassination literature can be divided into two classes. First, there are books, articles and websites that purport to dispense new information, such as revelations from people who claim to have been involved themselves (e.g., Nagell, James Files) or to have known people who were involved (e.g., Jack Ruby), or people who may have been involved (like Lee Harvey Oswald). The public is justifiably sick of books like these, partly because they have been surfeited with them over the years and partly because there is no means of assessing their veracity. Information deriving from unidentified sources is obviously suspect, but, unfortunately, almost always necessary in the case of a person possessing genuine information about the 'crime of the century.' This means that a great deal of assassination literature is effectively a cul-de-sac.

In the second category are synthetic accounts, efforts to achieve an overall picture, like Matthew Smith's JFK: The Second Plot. Such books are often useful for challenging one's existing frame of the assassination, but the more such books one reads, the more one becomes aware of how much pertinent information they leave out. How can one accept, for instance, an account of the assassination which presents Oswald as a participant (as does Russell's), when there is actually no evidence to prove that he knew anything about the assassination at all? (I do not mean to rule out the possibility that he was involved, only to point out that there is no evidence proving that he was.)

The fact is that while many such syntheses make enthralling reading, there is very little that would permit the reader to privilege one writer's view of the assassination over another. None can be regarded as entirely satisfying. By far the most important genuine investigation of the assassination is David Lifton's Best Evidence (1981). In this book, Lifton focused on hitherto neglected aspects of the assassination, and demonstrated how the assassination cover up was made possible by the faking the autopsy evidence. Whether this was done by altering the president's body or simply by faking the autopsy notes and X-rays, as some JFK researchers believe (because the idea is less macabre?), is a secondary matter. However, in my view Lifton presents a mass of evidence - gathered, it must be said, by exemplary investigative means - that compels the conclusion that Kennedy's body was altered. Many of the events of November 22, 1963 are wholly inexplicable if they were not being engineered in order to create an opportunity for this to happen.

The passage of time has only been good to Lifton. As Douglas Horne wrote recently in The Assassination of JFK (2004):

David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB [Assassinations Records Review Board] staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller.

If you leave aside Lifton's outstanding book, the only major contribution to the case has been Mark Lane's Plausible Denial, which, while less gripping than Best Evidence, convincingly demonstrates by means of a court case involving the Spotlight magazine that the CIA had something to do with the assassination. Exactly what remains unclear, however.

After forty years of independent investigation - and the official investigations have been utterly worthless - what has accumulated is a vast amount of evidence of connections between people who were apparently involved in the assassination is some way. Evidence of connections, unfortunately, is of limited value as a window on the assassination. Until the publication of Michael Collins Piper's book Final Judgment (first edition in 1994), it was virtually impossible to discern any interest underlining even the most solidly attested assassination-related connections. There seemed to be some secret agenda that remained utterly concealed from view. It is perhaps for this reason that Peter Dale Scott has spoken of 'deep politics,' a concept which is so elusive that I still haven't grasped it, but which seems to be an allusion to the interests of the military industrial complex. A less charitable interpretation is that Scott uses the term to obfuscate politics that are not really so deep after all, but which he would probably prefer to keep buried deeply.

Piper's Final Judgment represents the culmination of the tradition of exploring the assassination by means of analysing the connections between individuals who can legitimately be suspected of involvement in the assassination. What's more, Piper succeeds where no one has done before in identifying an interest that would unite most if not all of the actors suspected of involvement: Israel. Piper's theory, by far the most comprehensive of any presented so far, essentially identifies Israel, its close supporters inside the CIA and Jewish-American organized crime as the perpetrators of the atrocity in Dealey Plaza. The issue that crystallized Jewish-Israeli opposition to JFK was his determination not only to prevent nuclear proliferation, but to prevent the situation in the Middle East from developing into a situation that would destabilize the entire region (as, in fact, it has). While JFK was therefore opposed to Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was convinced - as were most of the Israeli power structure - that possession of nuclear weapons was the only way to assure the country's survival.

It is for this latter reason that Piper's book cannot be dismissed as an anti-Zionist conspiracy theory. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Zionism knows that Zionists were willing to go to any lengths to bring about the creation of a Zionist state, while those who oversaw the birth of that state, like Ben-Gurion, were willing to go to any lengths to protect it. Attempts to disparage Piper's book look to me like specious attempts to prevent the public from learning what anyone with a good knowledge of history does in fact already know.

This does not mean that Piper provides a smoking gun: he brandishes no crumpled notes scribbled in Ben-Gurion's handwriting reading 'Reminder: must get the Mossad to hit JFK!'. The idea that definitive proof of complicity could ever emerge in this case is, of course, utterly naive. Most evidence would probably have been destroyed, while anything incriminating that survives would be safe in the hands of agencies tasked with covering up the crime. That leaves identification of the interests binding all the known and probable participants as the only means of working out who was behind the assassination. It is this task that Michael Piper Collins has accomplished superbly. What's more, since the publication of the book, the essential thesis - the Mossad did it - has been confirmed by another one of the Mossad's victims, nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu. Due to his mistreatment by the Israeli state, Vanunu has a motive for going public with information critical of Israel, but not a motive for lying. (Vanunu seems to be a man of immense integrity whose only weakness is the bizarre notion that if the Israeli authorities would allow him to leave Israel he would find a safe haven in the U.S. In fact, he's probably safer in Israel. In the U.S. would have been gunned down by now by someone from the Jewish terrorist organization the JDL.)

On the basis of Vanunu's statement alone, we can regard the JFK case as closed. Michael Collins Piper can therefore take the credit for having done what no one else could do: provide a wholly convincing portrait of the network of interests behind the assassination, the first that has ever been written. The startling fact is that Piper's is not apparently the most brilliant mind which has ever exerted itself on the case; the irony is that the case was solved not by brilliant detective work, but because someone was prepared to go where the evidence led instead of being thwarted by the taboo that has long since grown up around Israel. In short, Piper's achievement represents the triumph not of individual genius, but of free and unfettered intellectual enquiry - the sort that seems to be virtually illegal these days.

Piper's book is the great suppressed book on the assassination. Although it has sold quite respectably, and would probably rank in sales terms among the top ten books about the case, there is an eery silence about the book from within the JFK conspiracy establishment, from people like Jim Fetzer, editor of some of the most fascinating books published recently about the case, Debra Conway, who runs the JFK 'research community' JFK Lancer, and the new Mary Ferrell Foundation JFK research website. The latter website strikes me as particularly in your face attempt to suppress knowledge of Piper's book. This website offers JFK conspiracy devotees a list of 311 books about the assassination, yet Piper's is the only important book on the assassination that cannot be found among them; on account of its impressive sales alone, Final Judgment deserves to be mentioned. Even more importantly, it should be mentioned as a work that is regarded by unbiased minds as the best and most objective overview of the forces that brought about the conspiracy to kill JFK. The absence of this book from the website is a case of the emperor having no clothes if ever there was one. What assassination researcher would benefit from visiting a website that ignores the most important book on the subject Mary Ferrell spent the best part of her life seeking to unravel?


Social Democracy Now
Poll results
Who would Jesus assassinate?
Hugo Chavez 19 %
George Bush 81 %
Votes in total 77

A question I would like to leave the reader with is whether such an extensive campaign of personal vilification as that which was waged after the massacre against Martin Bryant, however deviant or creepy he may have been (and there is no reason to think that he was either), would have been necessary if there had actually been some evidence that he had in fact been its perpetrator?'

NOTE: Carl Wernerhoff's What's Going On?: A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre can be downloaded free of charge from the following locations:

Main Page - Tuesday, 12/05/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)