Of circus dogs, paper capers, magic bullets and leaky domes

Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip. (George Orwell, As I Please (weekly column in the London Tribune) 7 July 1944)

circus dogThis post is a mishmash of stuff that’s been itching at me. The quote above came to mind in light of James Conner, Don Pogreba and others being so critical of people who do not rely on the usual American news sources. It’s a form of circus doggery. They have trained themselves to jump through the NY Times and Washington Post, or if really adventurous, even wandering over to “opposition” sources, like FOX or MSNBC. Such faith alleviates the burden of having to think. It’s laziness, on one hand, but also prevents thought crimes.

But take it up a level. Noam Chomsky, whom I have read extensively, will often say that we cannot know the truth of some incident until the “documents are released.” Indeed, there is a constant review process going on of classified documents, and often when enough time has passed and the guilty are dead, the government will go into “now it can be told” mode. In 1997, for instance, the overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala by CIA was declassified and we learned that everything we were told in the past was a “snow job.” The time to know that, of course, was 1954.

This is Chomsky’s fatal flaw, as I see it. Why think, even for a moment, that the documents, even those released decades later, are not at least sanitized, if not outright fraudulent? Chomsky is one who pooh-poohs the Kennedy assassination as having any importance, and at least part of that, I imagine, comes from his reading of the Pentagon Papers. In them there is no mention of the assassination – in fact, the Papers have Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge returning to DC to meet with Kennedy on November 24, 1963.

Chomsky, along with Howard Zinn, was part of the intrigue surrounding release of those documents, assisting in getting them photocopied, playing secret agent men. But in the end, it was a clumsy burglary that got Daniel Ellsberg off the hook, so clumsy, in fact, that it appears to me that the guys who did it wanted to be caught, and wanted it to lead back to the White House. The three burglars, Eugenio Martinez, Felipe de Diego and E. Howard Hunt, were all old “CIA hands.” They know how not to get caught. First, they’d hire people who cannot be traced, second, they’d make sure it was clean, no trace left behind.

The net result of the Pentagon Papers caper is this notion we all have, especially professional historians, that those papers must be real because the Pentagon did not want them released. This lends them high credibility. This is how fake history becomes mainstream. The fact that the Kennedy assassination is not mentioned therein lends creds to the notion that his murder was just one of those things. In other words, judging by the way they let Ellsberg off the hook, I judge that it was a PSYOP, and part of the JFK cover-up.

Anyway, I judge Chomsky’s reliance on official sources to be but one rung above Conner and Pogie on the ladder of credulity, just a better trained circus dog.

Which brings me to another subject, something I only recently learned. This is testimony of John S. Bates, who in 1978 was Senior firearms examiner in the New York State Police Laboratory at Albany. He was a lecturer at the New York State Police Academy, New York State Municipal Police Training Council, and various community colleges.The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked him to examine a bullet fired from Warren Commission Exhibit 139, the Mannicher-Carcano, and compare it to Warren Commission exhibit 399 Bullets that the FBI claimed came for the same gun and matched Commission exhibit 399, the so-called “magic bullet.” (Confusion on my end):

From Volume I, page 464 of the HSCA hearings:

Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test bullets that you recently fired out of 139?
Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.
Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show?
Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not determine whether the FBI test bullets were, in fact, fired from the rifle, CE-139.
Mr. McDONALD. And would you please explain your answer?
Mr. BATES. Based upon the microscopic comparison, there were differences in the individual identifying characteristics found within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on the panel test bullets.

You can debate all you want about the mid-air gymnastics that 399 supposedly pulled off, but if it the government cannot even establish that it came from the Mannlicher, are we not wasting our time? That, ladies and gentlemen, is case closed. Had Oswald lived, had he been given a fair trial, he would not have been convicted.

That’s why they kill patsies. It eliminates the need for juries, defense attorneys, and nagging goddamned evidence.

Finally, we’ve heard quite a bit about Israel’s supposed Iron Dome that is knocking Palestinian missiles out of the air before they do any harm. Here is what MIT physicist Theodore Postol had to say about it in 2013:

It’s very hard to see how it (Iron Dome’s success rate) could be more than 5 or 10 percent.”

Mordechai Shefer, an Israeli rocket scientist formerly with Rafael, Iron Dome’s maker, studied about two dozen videos and, in a study published in early 2013, concluded that the kill rate was “zero.”

So how, pray tell, does a system that is 0-10% effective in 2013 become 100% effective in 2014? It’s magic, I tell you. Magic. Perhaps, in honor of the late Arlen Specter, they should rename the Iron Dome the Magic Dome.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in American wilderness, Stupid American Tales, Thought control. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Of circus dogs, paper capers, magic bullets and leaky domes

  1. steve kelly says:

    Failed weapons systems seem the norm. Just another way to perpetuate fake (war) “economy” and shuffle stacks of money to “investors” looking to make a few bucks — quarter after quarter, year after year.

    I remember seeing an MX demo in Richfield, Utah in the early 1980’s. It scared the shit out of everyone who saw it. They don’t do that anymore.

    Gaza, like Iraq and Afghanistan, is an R & D testing range of sorts, in addition to being an occupied prison camp. Bottom line: Reagan’s “Star Wars” idea was as cracked as he was, but hey, some people got rich.


  2. Rob Kailey says:

    Steve, the best evidence of what you refer to is the F-35, a weapons system even the Pentagon has given up on and yet the Congress continues to fund it’s “development”. The “Iron Dome” system, however, is not in ‘test’ because the technology has already been sold.

    Still, I think that’s beside the point of Mark’s observation. As per norm, he teases the reader to the appropriate conclusion (he wants) when in fact he probably just ought to flat out state it. But that would require being overtly logical, which for some reason I will never understand Mark often seems to think abhorrent, or low minded. Go figure. 😉 I could be wrong, but I think his implied point is this: The dreaded Hamas missiles (which aren’t really missiles, they are rockets) have been almost universally ineffective in any attack against Israel for at least 5 years. The narrative is that Israel has a vaunted Magic Dome, shooting down any offense to their safety. Yet, Israel has to invade the Gaza to “defend itself”. There are 2 implications. 1) If Israel is in no danger from ‘missiles’ with the Magic Dome, then why are they turning Gaza into a graveyard? 2) If the Iron Dome doesn’t work, and Hamas has caused no damage, what real danger is Israel in, that they have to turn Gaza into a graveyard?

    Your larger point is well taken, Mark. This ‘current action’ is shooting fish in a barrel. It’s a genocide and no linguistic trickery can adequately cover that up, if one hasn’t been trained to ‘jump’. The funny thing is, the logical conclusions I’ve come to here were without overtly seeking alternative news sources. That would be just jumping to a different whip. The evidence has been quite exposed in even the mainstream of American news. Where I quite agree with you is not the solid and knee-jerk distrust of media, but rather that people don’t make connections, actually think about what they’ve been told to learn.


    • That was dead-on. But isn’t it more fun to let the reader figure it out?


      • Rob Kailey says:

        ~heh~ Not really when it comes to you, Mark. Far too often you are suspicious even when someone has ‘broken your code’. I apologize for being so blunt.


        • There is no code. There are big issues at stake and nothing we’re being told explains them … It’s not about Palestinians harassing Israelis, as Israel has complete control of that situation and can club them like baby seals at will. It’s not even about nations, though it is hard to think of Exxon instead of Qatar, and god knows religion has nothing to do with it. It is about resources that are not scarce, but valuable, and who benefits from their exploitation. That factors in. Pipelines are huge, as if Western Europe is in play.

          But I do not understand it well enough in those terms, so I dabble whilst trying to figure it out. Somehow, an airliner that simply disappears factors in, along with another supposedly shot down, both 777’s, both Malaysian. Just once I’d like to be ahead of the curve instead of behind the eight ball.


  3. Pingback: A comment or two … | Piece Of Mind

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s