Tramps shining

The Dealey Plaza “tramps.” Two of the men are probably future Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis. The arresting officers have never been identified. They were not members of the Dallas police force.
I often challenge people who doubt my sanity and beliefs about such events as the JFK murder or 9/11 to examine the evidence. Few do, but those few always walk away deeply troubled. Doing so can lead to a transformative experience. That, to me, is the only remaining importance of such inquiry, as the people who did these crimes will never be formally accused, apprehended, or confess. No punishment awaits. In fact, so long after JFK’s death, it is probably safe to say that most of those involved at that time are now dead.

Those who do not look at it have the luxury of assuming that the “evidence” consists of blurry photographs and bizarre imagined coincidence. Far from it, over the years a large body of incriminating information has been assembled. But it is not anyone’s job to solve those crimes, and skeptics do not have to submit a plausible alternative to the official stories. It was the job of the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that events transpired as it claims. If one critical aspect can be shown to be false, then that duty has not been met. And indeed, each event has a lynchpin that holds it together – with JFK, a bullet performing miraculous deeds, and with 9/11, a jet aircraft not just in violation of Newton’s Third Law, but absurdly mocking it.

I was just perusing Jame W. Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, recording some important passages, and came across this: from page 153 forward:

Richard Case Nagell, “the man who knew too much,” walked into a bank in El Paso, Texas, on September 20, 1963, and calmly fired two shots from a Colt .45 pistol into a plaster wall just below the bank’s ceiling. He then went outside and waited in his car until a police officer came to arrest him. When questioned by the FBI, Nagell made only one statement: “I would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason.”

Richard Case Nagell had been a U.S. Army counterintelligence officer from 1955 to 1959. He was assigned to Field Operations Intelligence (FOI), which he later described as “a covert extension of CIA policy and activity designed to conceal the true nature of CIA objectives.” During his FOI orientation at Far East Headquarters in Japan, Nagell was familiarized, he said, with “simple and intricate weapons to be used in assassinations.” He was also “advised that in the event I was apprehended, killed or compromised during the performance of any of my illegal FOI duties, the Department of the Army would publicly disclaim any knowledge of or connection with such duties, exercising its right of plausible denial.”

In the late fifties while stationed in Japan, Nagell began his Army/CIA role as a double agent in liaison with Soviet intelligence. In Tokyo, Nagell’s path converged with that of counterintelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald. Both men worked in a counterintelligence operations with the code name “Hidell,” which Oswald later used as part of his alias, “Alek James Hidell.” Nagell’s biographer Dick Russell believes it was Nagell who actually assigned the “Hidell” alias to Oswald.

As a continuing double agent in 1963, Nagell was working with Soviet intelligence in Mexico City. He was reporting back to the CIA, in an operations directed by the chief of the CIA’s Cuban Task Force, Desmond Fitzgerald. Assigned by the KGB to monitor Lee Harvey Oswald in the United States after Oswald returned from Russia, Nagell became involved in New Orleans and Texas with Oswald and two Cuban exiles in what he saw was a “large” operation to kill JFK. The Cubans were known by their “war names” of “Angel” and “Leopoldo.” Nagell told Dick Russell that Angel and Leopoldo “were connected with a violence-prone faction of a CIA-financed group operating in Mexico City and elsewhere.” He identified Angel’s and Leopoldo’s CIA-financed group as Alpha 66.

Douglass has done a masterful job of assembling a small portion of the evidence so that we understand what happened that day. More importantly, he works it into a larger narrative of why it happened. He may have lionized JFK a bit too much, as people tend to do with fallen martyrs, but he sets the scene where a man at odds with the national security establishment is murdered by that establishment. What is most troubling are the number of people involved and the accessories after the fact, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

One thing leads to another to another, and in the end, there is no coincidence, no blurry photographs, but events tied to one another by common actors and predictable “coincidence.” It’s not just a few things here and there, but volumes of ‘things’ that far outweigh the official evidence brought to bear against Oswald.

I understand why people look away. That’s human nature. It’s much easier to do that than to confront fear. I only wish that in so doing, they were not so rude as to call those among us who have not turned off our brains such insulting names. Far from being mental or paranoid or obsessive, we are among that small percentage of citizens that are alert, skeptical of power and of official truth. And, oh yeah, by the way, we are able to easily solve a pretty obvious crime.
__________
* Douglass is currently working on two more books covering the assassinations of 1) Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, and 2) Robert F. Kennedy.

17 thoughts on “Tramps shining

  1. Mark, have you procured your tramp stamp to validate your alternate reality? Kinda like having your passport stamped at San Marino.

    Like

    1. Crimestop: Newspeak word, and one of the central pillars of Ingsoc. Crimestop refers to the ability to stop short of any thought that might be heretical or unorthodox before it is even thought, as if by instinct. It is the ability to misunderstand analogies, fail to perceive logical errors, and be repelled or bored by any train of thought or conversation that might be inimical to Ingsoc. Of course, this process is not unique to Ingsoc, and has been and still is applied by most religious and political extremists. (Urban Dictionary, in large part quoting Orwell’s 1984.)

      Crimestop is not stupidity, or at least not natural stupidity. It is the ability to deliberately retard one’s own intelligence, and, of course, to forget the process of doing it by doublethink.

      Like

  2. You’re welcome. Now, what do we do about it? Ike was a dirty bastard. He warned us AFTER he had appointed Dulles to head the CIA. He was an accomplice. We had a coup, somewhat bloodless, but a coup none-the-less. Now, what to do? And bush still lives, as do the Kockh brothers. We need to get the dirty bastards on lie detectors before they die! And really, is that asking too much? The evidence is pretty clear.

    Like

    1. I have probably read 100 books about JFK since 1988. It is not as simple as you want it to be. Ike was nothing like what you say, Vietnam was already on the verge of a full bore war. You far oversimplify very complicated times and people into simple good and evil.

      The assassination is nothing more than a portal, and not a validation/salvation exercise. Starting there you enter life as it really is. From there you begin exploring. That is the only value in looking at those days and that incident.

      Like

      1. Um, mark, just a quick reminder. So, you read one hundred books, yet you STILL concluded that the mafia did it. Hmmm. WHO thought it was so simple again? Answer. Not me. You.

        Like

        1. LK, the mafia did do their part in both the initial assassination and the cover-up. This allows plausible deniability for the spooks involved. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. (See the House Select Committee on Assassinations)

          If I recall, you seem to believe that the towers were brought down by silent explosives that caused no brain concussions or burns to people and which curiously completely pulverized about 80% of the steel and concrete that made up the WTC, to dust, while leaving paper intact.

          Never mind that there isn’t any good evidence that suggests this is a plausible scenario.

          Like

      2. I see that it is about personal validation, then. That’s all that matters to you? Oh yeah, your annoying moral superiority factors in too.

        While still in high school, still very much the right-wing child of right-wing parents being brought up a proper anti-Commie Catholic, I read Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgement. It did not compute, that is, it never occurred to me that our own government could have done it. I left it there. Nothing happened until the 25th anniversary, and Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins. In the opening salvo, he talked about “right-wing” factors in the CIA having done it. That rankled me, but I was determined to solve the crime for myself. That’s when I went on the odyssey. At that time, in my view, the best work was Lifton’s Best Evidence. There were countless others, I read them all. Lifton introduced me to the notion of contradiction, that they cannot exist and must be resolved. From there I went on a journey to understand the events of that time, including Vietnam and Cuba. I had also encountered Chomsky and Cockburn, who said that the assassination was not a big deal, to move on, not get embroiled. And I did that, but in the back of my mind I was always embroiled and could not understand why those two were so insistent that there was nothing to know there.

        I was very unschooled, very much needing a broader scope, and not knowing it. You might say that I was where you are now, just getting a grip and thinking I had it figured out. Anyway, I let it rest for many years. I did encounter some scientific work maybe twelve years ago indicating that the Zapruder film had been altered. That messed me up good.

        I was not aware of the phenomenon called “gatekeeper,” and the “limited hangout.” LaMar Waldron and (supposedly) Thom Hartman, wrote the two books, the latter one called Legacy of Secrecy, each brick-sized, about the mafia and a Cuban connection, and those books did what was intended – they reassured me that it was indeed a fuck-up, that the CIA and the mafia were indeed in bed together, but that the mafia had turned the tables in the CIA and taken their plot to kill Castro, and using the same people, instead murdered JFK.

        I know now that Waldron is an “op,” that the work was done in anticipation of the 50th to construct yet another garden path, and that Hartmann was either used as a dupe or is himself a gatekeeper, and most likely had no part in the writing of the book. (I find him unreadable, and did not sense his crappy writing in the works.)

        You see, dude, it isn’t easy, the people who dunnit were smart enough not only to cover it up but also to dissemble and create a hall of mirrors. It could be that Douglass is another gatekeeper, though the thin exposure his book gets (as opposed to the Waldron work being made into a movie) suggests that he is genuine. But we never know.

        Along comes you, having solved the crime, being all arrogant and self-assured. It’s part of why you are so annoying.

        Like

    1. Typical of a man who has read nothing about it, you know nothing about it. Of the ten “theories,” the one about the CIA is actually true. By linking it with less credible theories, the writers pull the lumping together fallacy on you. It’s a cheap trick of logic.

      Your link is to a “debunking” website, designed to reassure low-information people like you that there is nothing to all of the hubbub around his death. That keeps you in your low information state, which seems to please you.

      As long as you are so fond of links and snips, here’s one for you:

      Because of the work of [Vincent J.] Salandria, [Raymond] Marcus and several others provided proof of a conspiracy that was simple and obvious, the media had to distort the work of these critics in order to rescue the government’s good name. In this effort the media resorted to Orwellian use of the term “conspiracy theorists” in referring to all Warren Commission critics, including Salandria and Marcus. … by this use of language the media were able to take proof of conspiracy and turned it into theory of a conspiracy. With proof turned into theory, knowledge was turned into belief, and the government was able to retreat to the position that perhaps the Warren Commission was mistaken, but of course no one would be “so extreme” as to claim that Earl Warren and the other Commission members were anything but honorable men. Thus was launched the thirty-plus year debate over the Warren Report. … Unwittingly many honest citizens, tricked into participation, became part of the cover-up, because the debate gave legitimacy to the notion that there was doubt and uncertainty when there really was none. (E. Martin Schotz)

      My emphasis. I’ll give you another down below.

      Like

    2. This one, again from Schotz, applies directly to you. You have no knowledge, nor any means of systematically acquiring knowledge – that is, you arrive at simple truths and do not assemble them into a coherent body, and do not test them against reality. You are not even consistent. So the whole of the process of education is removed from your existence. You are indeed a “low information” American.

      Knowledge is not something which everyone wants. It is difficult to acquire, and in order to know, one must have a desire to know. In turn, one’s desire to know depends on social attitudes and social activity. To acquire knowledge one must go through the laborious process of digesting the work of others and make it one’s own. One can be helped to acquire knowledge and be guided in the process, but one cannot be given it directly. The process of acquiring knowledge has no true beginning. As with life one enters in the middle of the process and must attempt to go back and pick up what has been worked out historically while at the same time carrying the process forward.

      Like

      1. When Ken comes back to see his sister this summer I’ll have to ask him if you two smoked a lot of pot back in the day.

        Excessive use lends itself to schizophrenia, especially in young developing brains.

        And Schizoids eat, sleep and breathe conspiracies.

        Like

      2. Swede is what is colloquially known as a dumb ass. He talks about lots of stuff he’s never investigated, looked into, understood, nor wanted to understand. I say this with the exception of the petroleum biz. Swede seems to know something of that, but what exactly is murky. Swede is worse than ignorant, surely. He is stupid.

        His entire existence is devoted to attempting to prop up his simplistic, unsustainable, and useless world view that Republicans=conservative=moral superiority and of course the opposite proposition as well, Democrats=liberal=morally inferior. Of course, it’s a difficult sell, since Republicans have shown themselves ad finium to be frivolous criminals wacky mentally ill sociopaths, and incompetent to run anything, let alone the government, even to Swede, who is about as inconsistent as anyone gets. That he’s trying to sell you on his fantasy Utopian view is hilarious, given your position on the war party.

        Craig Moore, you are far more consistent overall, even if you are afraid to see the writing on the wall. A majority of people both here and abroad believe Kennedy was assassinated in a conspiracy, ie, more than one person was involved in making it happen. The reality you hold is by definition the alternate reality, even if you and Pogie share it with equal vigor. Craig, you can’t allow yourself to believe that you hold the alternate reality viewpoint, which is why you attack Mark for it. Yet the data doesn’t lie. Far more people see a plan and coordination, motives and opportunities than see a lone nut with no motive who is then himself assassinated by who, another lone nut with no motive? The fact that Oswald was US Intelligence asset on some level or another and that the CIA and other agencies have proactively and criminally covered up this information for the last 50 years is certainly in and of itself evidence of a crime as well as a crime in it’s own right.

        Most people know Kennedy was shot in a conspiracy. A minority of people believe Oswald acted alone and shot JFK for no apparent reason and was then shot by Ruby for no apparent reason. Even the House Select Committee on Assassinations rejected that curious view put forth by the FBI, The Dallas Police and then sanctified by The Warren Commission.

        Like

          1. Yeah, but I read yours.

            You guys keep digging up the non-consequential past and we’ll do the heavy lifting on the present.

            Like

          2. 1) not inconsequential, 2) can do both. But how can you understand the present if you don’t understand that? It is, after all, a portal. Not that you are the curious type.

            Like

          3. By the way, Swede, I have to give you credit in that you create the illusion of an exchange here, but it is not happening. You don’t read the posts, inject a link, and when people imagining that you are sentient post a response, you don’t read them either. Consequently, we get non-responses, non-sequiturs, additional links. When someone gets frustrated and goes off on you, as Steve did, we get hurt feelings and some dismissive remark as just posted.

            I know you haven’t even read this as you either bag this post and wait for another to interject your feeble ramblings, or are looking through your right wing emails for the appropriate response.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s