Final_Judgment

763 A Challenge to the Readers [665]
That much is true. However, I over-stated the matter when I went on to
assert that "Shaw, in fact, was one of Angleton's operatives. " While there is
no evidence Shaw was "one of Angleton's operatives," per se, it is almost
certain Shaw's reports crossed the desk of Angleton or his subordinates' at
one time or another. I am pleased to make this clarification, after JFK
researcher Clark Wilkins brought this over-statement to my attention.
(11) In the 4th edition I referred to a photograph (widely discussed in
JFK research) that purported to show Clay Shaw with David Ferrie. Since
then, others determined (to my satisfaction) that the person with Shaw is not
Ferrie. There is other evidence, however, the two knew one another. So,
again, this error does not impact on the thesis of Final Judgment.
(12) In previous editions, I cited Robert Morrow's false assertion that a
Pakistani-American was the "second gun" in the killing of Robert F.
Kennedy. The accused gentleman has unquestionably proved his innocence,
but this does not disprove Morrow's basic thesis that the Iranian SAVAK (a
creation of the CIA and the Mossad) carried out the RFK assassination.
(13) In previous editions, I cited authorities suggesting the CIA contract
assassin QJ/WIN may have been Frenchman Michael Mertz. Since that time
QJ/WIN has been identified and that has been noted. Yet, this fact, of
course, does not impact on the basic thesis of Final Judgment.
(14) In previous editions, including the first printing of this 6th edition, I
suggested no one had ever seen the famous Gemstone Files themselves and
that people had only seen the "Skeleton Key" to the files. In fact, some
people have seen the files. However, this error—again—has nothing
whatsoever to do with the thesis of Final Judgment itself.
(15) In the first printing of this 6th edition, in the "odds and ends" item
about Jack Ruby, I wrote that the city of Dallas was "hardly an outpost of
Jewish culture." Instead, as new material in the second printing of the 6th
edition demonstrates, Dallas was, in 1963, a major outpost of Jewish power,
a critical point firming up the thesis of Final Judgment and diminishing
other theories surrounding the JFK assassination.
So those are the errors (and minor ones at that) appearing in previous
editions. Are there more? Have I misquoted any published sources or taken
them out of context? Am I guilty of twisted reasoning? Have I
misrepresented anyone's opinions or any facts that others have presented?
Please tell me. I do want to know.
As noted in the afterword, Washington Jewish Week, in its April 28,
1994 edition, accused me of "quoting out-of-context secondary sources,
making unlikely tenuous connections, and asserting untruths over and over
as if their repetition will magically impart validity." An Israeli diplomat
called my theory "nonsense." Others call it "outrageous" and one
woman—Marcia Milchiker—went so far as to say that my theory was
"scientifically unprovable" as though I had suggested it was scientifically
provable in the first place. That's what the critics are saying.
Thus, my challenge to the readers: Show me where I'm wrong.
―MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER