Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Today at 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 10:12 am by Stan Dane

» What strange affidavits these are!
Yesterday at 11:43 pm by Ed. Ledoux

»  How Jack Ruby's Entry Could Have Been Coordinated
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:59 pm by Vinny

» JFK Conference
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:55 pm by Vinny

» Kennedys and King website
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:01 pm by barto

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



Mark Lane Question

Page 1 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 6:30 pm

Is he a disinformation mole?

Discuss...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 6:36 pm

Suppose I should answer my own question.  

My instinct tells me there's is something quite dodgy about him and I do not trust that he is a real truth seeker.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 7:02 pm

Lee David Farley wrote:Is he a disinformation mole?

Discuss...
 
That's a good question, Lee. Many weeks ago I had listened to him on black op radio discussing President Kennedy's secret service agents, and was shocked at some of the untruths he told. For example, he said that Roy Kellerman never turned around to look at the President, which was BS, as the Zapruder film shows him turning around to look at him after he is shot through the throat.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 7:09 pm

I'm incredibly interested in the question of the storm drains underneath Dealey Plaza and even though the mere mentioning of them brings allegations of nuttiness from even the critical community I am persuaded by their use on 11/22 and was thinking about Lane's relentless promotion of a grassy knoll shot (reinforced  in the 1980's by Gary Mack's bullshit badgeman) and everyone seemed to fixate on this as THE solution whilst ignoring other possibilities.  The storm drain at the corner of the overpass and the knoll's fence being one of them and if you ever go to Dealey Plaza and look at the small street directly in front of the TSBD you can see the original size of the storm drains on Elm Street before fifty years worth of asphalt was poured onto them.  I'm telling you, they're damn big and I even got a look inside the one on Elm and it's intriguing.

Lane, like you mention Hasan, has been promoting bollocks for decades.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 7:18 pm

Lee David Farley wrote:I'm incredibly interested in the question of the storm drains underneath Dealey Plaza and even though the mere mentioning of them brings allegations of nuttiness from even the critical community I am persuaded by their use on 11/22 and was thinking about Lane's relentless promotion of a grassy knoll shot (reinforced  in the 1980's by Gary Mack's bullshit badgeman) and everyone seemed to fixate on this as THE solution whilst ignoring other possibilities.  The storm drain at the corner of the overpass and the knoll's fence being one of them and if you ever go to Dealey Plaza and look at the small street directly in front of the TSBD you can see the original size of the storm drains on Elm Street before fifty years worth of asphalt was poured onto them.  I'm telling you, they're damn big and I even got a look inside the one on Elm and it's intriguing.

Lane, like you mention Hasan, has been promoting bollocks for decades.

Lee,

I totally agree that the so-called badgeman is nothing but bullshit. As for the storm drains, I think that there could be something to them, as Sergio Arcacha Smith had diagrams of the Dealey Plaza sewer system in his apartment. My current line of thinking is that the head wound was a tangential strike from the rear, with a MISSED shot from behind the picket fence. However, I am more than willing to be persuaded with credible evidence to think otherwise.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 7:31 pm

Hasan Yusuf wrote:
Lee David Farley wrote:I'm incredibly interested in the question of the storm drains underneath Dealey Plaza and even though the mere mentioning of them brings allegations of nuttiness from even the critical community I am persuaded by their use on 11/22 and was thinking about Lane's relentless promotion of a grassy knoll shot (reinforced  in the 1980's by Gary Mack's bullshit badgeman) and everyone seemed to fixate on this as THE solution whilst ignoring other possibilities.  The storm drain at the corner of the overpass and the knoll's fence being one of them and if you ever go to Dealey Plaza and look at the small street directly in front of the TSBD you can see the original size of the storm drains on Elm Street before fifty years worth of asphalt was poured onto them.  I'm telling you, they're damn big and I even got a look inside the one on Elm and it's intriguing.

Lane, like you mention Hasan, has been promoting bollocks for decades.

Lee,

I totally agree that the so-called badgeman is nothing but bullshit. As for the storm drains, I think that there could be something to them, as Sergio Arcacha Smith had diagrams of the Dealey Plaza sewer system in his apartment. My current line of thinking is that the head wound was a tangential strike from the rear, with a MISSED shot from behind the picket fence. However, I am more than willing to be persuaded with credible evidence to think otherwise.

 As I've mentioned before Hasan, the medical evidence is not my bag and sincerely believe the evidence is fucked up beyond all recognition to the point that everybody will interpret it differently - - I'm guessing that was the end game though.

Where do you believe the missed shot was taken from behind the fence and where do you think it struck?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 7:54 pm

Where do you believe the missed shot was taken from behind the fence and where do you think it struck?

Lee,

I believe the shot originated from near the corner of the picket fence, where the mysterious figure is seen in the Moorman photo, where the puff of smoke was observed by several witnesses, from about where J.C Price said he observed a man running away with what appeared to be a head piece, where Joe Smith said he encountered a man with Secret Service ID, where W.W Mabra said he encountered a "City Officer" who had been stationed in the parking area; where there really wasn't one etc.

I suspect the bullet is buried in the lawn of the plaza. I think that what might of happened was the TSBD shooter squeezed off a shot a split second before the "picket fence" shooter, which caused that shooter to flinch and miss the President's skull.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Mon 15 Jul 2013, 7:57 pm

Lone gunman zealots love to tell us that no conspirator would be stupid enough to be shooting at the President out in the open. However, I think this a moot argument, since I think it is more than safe to say that any person involved in shooting the President of the United States of America is not exactly what I would call a sane individual.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by beowulf on Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:14 pm

I don't think Lane's a mole. He's just been staring into the abyss for too long. In the 1970s, he got mixed up with Jim Jones (of Jonestown Massacre fame).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_%28author%29#Jonestown_tragedy

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:11 am

beowulf wrote:I don't think Lane's a mole. He's just been staring into the abyss for too long. In the 1970s, he got mixed up with Jim Jones (of Jonestown Massacre fame).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_%28author%29#Jonestown_tragedy

 He sure did Beowulf and he managed to cut loose just in time.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:13 am

The question had to be asked, given Lane’s peculiar clientele.  But if a mole, for whom?

A garden variety New York City liberal Democrat, Lane was purportedly picked by Marguerite to advocate on behalf of her dead son because he’d written a “J’accuse” style defense of him.  Were he an ambitious man, the international renown that followed achieved his aim.  (On the down side, of course, it made him a target of FBI surveillance, and in all likelihood by other national security interests as well, CIA among them.  There is peripheral evidence for this.) 

In this role, Lane pursued any and all evidence exculpatory to Oswald, or that undermined the Warren Commission’s predetermined conclusion of no conspiracy.  He didn't invent the witnesses, or their testimony, but used it to impeach the Commission's methodology.  He didn't need to invent witnesses rushing toward the picket fence, or to the hill-crest where the fence met the Triple Overpass; he needed only to cite it as an obvious reaction by people chasing what they believed to be an assassin.  Irrespective of Lane, other first generation skeptics likewise concluded the likelihood of a second gunman firing from that position, including several who loathed Lane.  I submit that whether or not Lane was a mole, and whether or not there was a gunman firing from the knoll, are two entirely unrelated questions. 

A decade or so later, the Jonestown fiasco had me asking the very same question as Lee has posed here.

 The lifelong association from childhood between Jim Jones and CIA’s Dan Mitrione, coupled with the known drug-induced mind control efforts by CIA (under various rubrics: MK/ULTRA, BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, et al), led to suspicions that Jonestown had been an Agency field experiment either gone awry, or successfully concluded.. 

The alleged presence in Jonestown of at least one central witness in the MLK murder only complicated matters in feverish directions.  What was Mark Lane doing, defending the instigators of a purported CIA project?  And why was he part of a plan to exfiltrate an MLK witness there?

However, Lane also took on the Spotlight case which eventually defeated E. Howard Hunt’s libel action, and succeeded in convincing the jury that CIA had murdered John Kennedy. 

What can we make of a career in which Lane both represented and undercut CIA proxies?  In which he represented both the Oswald-was-innocent position, and author Gerald Posner who claimed to have proved Oswald guilty?

Again, if a mole, for whom?

 (Edited to include:  http://jimhougan.com/wordpress/?tag=dan-mitrione )
 
 (second edit to improve clarity of language.... one hopes)

Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Wed 17 Jul 2013, 3:10 am

The $64,000 question, Robert.  "If a mole, for whom?"

I think I stick by my original overly simplistic and non-committal summation; I find the guy dodgy.

Whenever I ponder the true nature of Mark Lane I'm ultimately left with a further question; does Mark Lane's body of work give us clarity of direction or leave us with a mangled mess?

I appreciate how revered the guy is many critical quarters but I can't help but suspect he planted  and promoted (wittingly or unwittingly) many red herrings that has left this community chasing its tail for decades.

I must admit I feel the exact same way about Mary Ferrell, Paul Hoch, David Lifton and quite a few others whose combined intelligence and access to the documents could have definitively settled this case long ago.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Wed 17 Jul 2013, 5:37 am

Lee David Farley wrote:The $64,000 question, Robert.  "If a mole, for whom?"

I think I stick by my original overly simplistic and non-committal summation; I find the guy dodgy.

Whenever I ponder the true nature of Mark Lane I'm ultimately left with a further question; does Mark Lane's body of work give us clarity of direction or leave us with a mangled mess?

I appreciate how revered the guy is many critical quarters but I can't help but suspect he planted  and promoted (wittingly or unwittingly) many red herrings that has left this community chasing its tail for decades.

I must admit I feel the exact same way about Mary Ferrell, Paul Hoch, David Lifton and quite a few others whose combined intelligence and access to the documents could have definitively settled this case long ago.

FWIW: I agree with your take on Lane, Lee.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by greg parker on Wed 17 Jul 2013, 6:40 am

No comment.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Martin Hay on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 12:04 am

I don't believe for a second that Mark Lane is any type of mole or plant. His record shows him to be the kind of guy who always roots for the underdog and loves to take on bullies. He opposed segregation, got arrested as a freedom rider and represented numerous African Americans in civil rights cases. He was the only prominent figure speaking out in Oswald's defense in the wake of the assassination and his book Rush to Judgement was a brilliant deconstruction of the Warren Report that convinced masses of people (myself included) that Oswald really was just a patsy. 

Lane also played a big part in getting the HSCA started, hoping that it would lead to a real investigation of the JFK and MLK cases. He wrote a classic book on the MLK case and became Ray's lawyer; representing him before the HSCA and publicly exposing some of their dishonesties. By any standard, Lane has an impressive record. Sure he's made some questionable choices and been taken in by some obvious liars (Marita Lorenz anyone?) but the exact same thing can be said about Jim Garrison and I hope no one here would accuse him of being anyone's mole.

Let's also not forget that the CIA and FBI hated Lane and made numerous attempts to discredit him, trying to tie him in with communists and all that crap. But the way you can tell that Lane is a genuine truth seeker is that the lone nutters hate him. Really hate him. Guys like Jim Moore, Gerald Posner, and Vincent Bugliosi have all dedicated space in their books to calling Lane a liar and a fraud and yet none of them have been able to back it up with anything. Bugliosi wrote a whole chapter aimed at smearing Lane and discrediting his book and yet he never managed to point out a single mistake or falsehood in Rush to Judgement.

This is the opposite of how they treat Lifton. They treat that particular piece of work with respect. They discredit his theories easy enough but they don't attack him personally. In fact Bugliosi complimented him and John McAdams even has a couple of Lifton's articles on his site. Lifton's stuff is crazy tabloid bullshit that discredits the "conspiracy movement" and the lone nutters respect him. Lane's stuff is sober, fact-based and proves a conspiracy and the lone nutters hate him and call him a liar.

That's the difference between a mole and a truth-seeker if you ask me.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 12:56 am

Martin Hay wrote:I don't believe for a second that Mark Lane is any type of mole or plant. His record shows him to be the kind of guy who always roots for the underdog and loves to take on bullies. He opposed segregation, got arrested as a freedom rider and represented numerous African Americans in civil rights cases. He was the only prominent figure speaking out in Oswald's defense in the wake of the assassination and his book Rush to Judgement was a brilliant deconstruction of the Warren Report that convinced masses of people (myself included) that Oswald really was just a patsy. 

Lane also played a big part in getting the HSCA started, hoping that it would lead to a real investigation of the JFK and MLK cases. He wrote a classic book on the MLK case and became Ray's lawyer; representing him before the HSCA and publicly exposing some of their dishonesties. By any standard, Lane has an impressive record. Sure he's made some questionable choices and been taken in by some obvious liars (Marita Lorenz anyone?) but the exact same thing can be said about Jim Garrison and I hope no one here would accuse him of being anyone's mole.

Let's also not forget that the CIA and FBI hated Lane and made numerous attempts to discredit him, trying to tie him in with communists and all that crap. But the way you can tell that Lane is a genuine truth seeker is that the lone nutters hate him. Really hate him. Guys like Jim Moore, Gerald Posner, and Vincent Bugliosi have all dedicated space in their books to calling Lane a liar and a fraud and yet none of them have been able to back it up with anything. Bugliosi wrote a whole chapter aimed at smearing Lane and discrediting his book and yet he never managed to point out a single mistake or falsehood in Rush to Judgement.

This is the opposite of how they treat Lifton. They treat that particular piece of work with respect. They discredit his theories easy enough but they don't attack him personally. In fact Bugliosi complimented him and John McAdams even has a couple of Lifton's articles on his site. Lifton's stuff is crazy tabloid bullshit that discredits the "conspiracy movement" and the lone nutters respect him. Lane's stuff is sober, fact-based and proves a conspiracy and the lone nutters hate him and call him a liar.

That's the difference between a mole and a truth-seeker if you ask me.

 Thanks for your thoughts, Martin.  We have a difference of opinion but that's cool.  I don't buy into the whole CT/LN paradigms and feel they somewhat belittle and diminish what many of us are trying to achieve - - answering unanswered questions.

I can appreciate where both you and Robert are coming from as far as the personal criticism that Lane received from many different organisations and people but it takes all sorts to plant the seeds of discord.  I'm very interested in getting a copy of Joseph McBride's book to see what he says about what one of the most well thought of individuals within the so-called critical community, Mary Ferrell.  Ferrell is a figure comparable to Lane in my opinion and I cannot wait to read what McBride has to back up his claims that Ferrell was not exactly what she appreared to be.  Go back 10-15 years and nobody within this community would have a bad word said about Mary.  However, I have always had my doubts and I think the tide may be ready to turn concerning her revered status amongst researchers.

The more I research particular components of the JFK assassination (like you, on a part time basis and with nothing more than a PC) especially around the Lee Oswald narrative and I cannot believe that certain individuals, with access to many of the same documents that we have access to, working with sources and networks of people who for all intents and purposes are/were sharp as pins, with access to the archives, could not and did not strip back the veil of bullshit and instead promoted items that led others down blind alleys.

Even if we take his strange involvement in Jonestown off the table there are certainly things about Lane that leave me completely and utterly perplexed not least his pursuit of the Marita Lorenz story and his recent support for Gerald Posner.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Martin Hay on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 1:39 am

Lee, as I understand it, McBride buys into the likes of Lifton and Horne. That being the case, I'm not remotely impressed that he thinks Mary Ferrell was some type of CIA plant.

The guy clearly has no bullshit detector.

Ferrell amassed a vast collection of primary materials relating to the assassinations of the '60s and made them available to all. What would make you think she was some kind of mole or whatever? If she really was, what did she achieve in that regard?

I think the same questions apply to Mark Lane. What has he done to further the agenda of anyone opposed to finding the truth?

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 1:54 am

O
Martin Hay wrote:Lee, as I understand it, McBride buys into the likes of Lifton and Horne. That being the case, I'm not remotely impressed that he thinks Mary Ferrell was some type of CIA plant.

The guy clearly has no bullshit detector.

Ferrell amassed a vast collection of primary materials relating to the assassinations of the '60s and made them available to all. What would make you think she was some kind of mole or whatever? If she really was, what did she achieve in that regard?

I think the same questions apply to Mark Lane. What has he done to further the agenda of anyone opposed to finding the truth?

 That's my point, Martin.  Have we found the "truth"?  Or are we all still sat here arguing the toss about which direction the shots came from?

I'd ask you to read the HSCA Critics Conference document and see which direction the likes of Ferrell, Paul Hoch and Tink Thompson tried to send the investigation.

Do you believe that Thompson is legit?  I tore holes in his shitty "investigation" over at the EF and the only thing he could do was come up with some bullshit excuses and or he ignored every salient point I made. This guy is an Ivy Leaguer and was supposed to be a professional P.I. and some no-mark dip-shit from Liverpool was ripping clumps out of him and showing his investigation up as a sham.

As far as McBride is concerned I'll wait and see what he believes because I have yet to read his book but I am interested in what he has to say about Ferrell and I'll deal with each of his points and themes individually.

The agenda was always to leave the likes of us sat here scratching our arses and chatting bullshit through letters or from a contemporary perspective, writing on websites.  Job done

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Martin Hay on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 3:35 am

Lee, I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your belief that anything more than what the critics did was actually possible. What is it you feel the likes of Ferrell, Lane, Thompson etc could or should have done with the information they had but did not do?

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 7:39 am

I think all of you have made some excellent points in your posts. I hope you guys keep up this discussion (in a civilized manner). FWIW I think all you guys are amongst the most competent and honest researchers one could ask for. That being said, I would hate to see a falling out between any of you over these issues!

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by greg parker on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 1:25 pm

Time for a musical interlude.

Meet the 2nd Mrs Mark Lane.



Her performance at the '61 Edinburgh Festival made her name. One critic said of her, "she could sing in 10 languages - badly".

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 5:43 pm

Martin Hay wrote:Lee, I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your belief that anything more than what the critics did was actually possible. What is it you feel the likes of Ferrell, Lane, Thompson etc could or should have done with the information they had but did not do?

 Martin,

I have no problems with anybody disagreeing with any beliefs that I espouse.  However I was commenting upon what some of the early critics did do and not what they should or could have done.  I don't believe me saying that Mark Lane should not have gotten involved with Jim Jones helps clarify matters because the fact is he did and his involvement and actions at Jonestown are pretty bizarre to say the least and they forever stain his reputation as far as I'm concerned.

Over the next few days (when I have time) I will detail some specific areas/topics where I believe Lane may have led everybody down the garden path regarding the JFK case and we can discuss - - the Helen Markham shitstorm would be one.  I am not here to win/lose an argument (that is not why I come to Greg's site) - - I am here to shine light on issues that I believe are important. 

On the subject of some of the other early critics I certainly hold favourable impressions of some of them and deem others to be nothing more than shit-stirrers.  Sylvia Meagher would be someone that I completely respect.  Some of them though, IMO, involved themselves in this case to craftily sow discord and divide individuals on particular issues to the point that the overall objective of dismantling the Warren Commission was ultimately lost through a fractured community, self-interest and mixing bullshit with facts to the point that the only way to make sense of this case is to dedicate your whole fucking life to it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by greg parker on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 6:23 pm

Lee,

I have one episode involving Lane where I am genuinely at a loss to decide if it fits the mixing truth and bullshit paradigm, or whether his involvement was totally innocent. Just to clarify... it wasn't him doing the "mixing"... but he did set it up for others to do it. 

I may throw it into the mix. Maybe you guys can help clarify the real role of each player in the drama...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Guest on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 6:31 pm

greg parker wrote:Lee,

I have one episode involving Lane where I am genuinely at a loss to decide if it fits the mixing truth and bullshit paradigm, or whether his involvement was totally innocent. Just to clarify... it wasn't him doing the "mixing"... but he did set it up for others to do it. 

I may throw it into the mix. Maybe you guys can help clarify the real role of each player in the drama...

 Sure thing, Greg.  Fire away

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by greg parker on Thu 18 Jul 2013, 7:44 pm

Lane contacted Thayer Waldo and requested him to accompany Marguerite to the airport for her big turn before the commission.

Waldo arrived and was introduced as a reporter (although they disputed this) to Mike Howard of the USSS and his cop brother, Pat who were driving Mama to the airport.

After she was safely in the air, Sorrels, who had arrived separately, invited the three escorts for coffee. Lots of scuttlebutt ensued and even more as Pat and Mike drove Thayer home or to the newspaper office (depending again on who you believe).

The story given to Thayer also has different versions, but essentially, it was about a black employee who fled the TSBD in a hurry because he had a record for gambling. He went to Special Services who then were supposedly keeping him under wraps waiting for him to be called by the commission as a star witness against Oswald. I think (so I could be wrong!) that it was around this time that Givens suddenly remembered going back to the 6th for cigarettes.

Back to Thayer. He went to print with the story on the basis that neither brother said they were talking "off the record". His version, if believed, gives little doubt that they wanted him to have the information.

Thayer also told Lane of the episode and was livid when Lane published the story because he believed what he was telling Lane was "privileged" information to a lawyer involved in the case.

Like I said, there were a number of versions of what was told to Thayer. But I see absolutely no reason to doubt the reporter. The problem is that what was said to him was partly true, partly rumor and partly total bullshit.

Was Lane complicit in setting Waldo up with those two so they could get this into the papers? It clouded the whole issue of Piper, the black man seen running off after the assassination, and the black man seen by Rowland.

There are a lot more documents, but this is a good starting point.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11465&relPageId=2

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Lane Question

Post by Sponsored content Today at 9:10 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum