Mark Lane Responds

[Pat Speer]

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic....c&start=210

He's not a difficult person to get info on. Quite a fascinating individual. In addition to being caught on tape telling a woman to give a false description of Tippit's shooter, he also uncovered a former Nazi serving as a colonel for the US in Vietnam (not), he served as a lawyer for Jim Jones, and he's the guy who started the whole "grassy knoll" theory.

Mark Lane has been covered. He makes the UFO congressman look sane.

Read it. It's in the book." is a non-argument. We did this with Mark Lane, and both he and his book amounted to him being the worst profiteering, Jim-Jones-defending whacko in the bunch. He even outdid the UFO Congress dude.

Uhhh...what's the point?

[Peter McGuire]

These are examples of how Mark Lane is discredited because of his spot on work on the case. Lone Nutters google Mr. Lane and instantly dismiss him because of lies like the above. The only thing that makes any sense at all of these is his work regarding the Tippit witness testimony, which we have discussed here. Otherwise, it is nonsense that is instantly believed by Lone Nutters.

Even on this forum, there is a brainwashed fool who believes these lies about Mr. Lane.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Karl Kinaski]

Thank you for joining the forum, Mark.

I read and thoroughly enjoyed Plausible Denial.

Ergo. I read it 10 years ago in a german translation. Lane got a good sense of humor. Even a high ranking CIA man, he interviewed in his Office on Capitol -Hill was not immune to Lanes jokes.

The CIA-guy laughed, and making notes in his pad, he said: "Oh, they told me, you are good."

(Whatever that means, coming from a Langley-knight.)

KK

[Pat Speer]

These are examples of how Mark Lane is discredited because of his spot on work on the case. Lone Nutters google Mr. Lane and instantly dismiss him because of lies like the above. The only thing that makes any sense at all of these is his work regarding the Tippit witness testimony, which we have discussed here. Otherwise, it is nonsense that is instantly believed by Lone Nutters.

Even on this forum, there is a brainwashed fool who believes these lies about Mr. Lane.

Got it.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

On 8-4-64, 8-21-64, and 9-10-64, the FBI creates reports on the “Mark Lane Security Matter” and forwards them to the Warren Commission. While ostensibly an investigation of communist involvement in Lane’s Citizen’s Committee of Inquiry, which he’d formed to unveil the truth about the assassination, these reports are really designed to feed the Commission what its critics are saying, so that the Commission can counter these arguments in their final report. (Indeed, many of Lane’s questions would be answered by the report.) There are unnerving elements to these FBI reports however. The 8-4 report details a number of Lane’s speeches, and cites ten separate confidential sources, the 8-21 report includes a complete transcript of Lane’s appearance on a radio show, and the 9-10 report details more of Lane’s speeches, and cites twelve confidential sources. This raises a few questions: Where was all this manpower when it came time to identify the unidentified witnesses in the photographs of the shooting? Where was all this manpower when it came time to interview the witnesses who were known to the media, or mentioned in the early reports of the Dallas Police? Where was all this manpower when it came to accurately simulate the conditions in Dallas, to see if Oswald could actually have performed his purported feat? Furthermore, where was all this manpower when it came time to review the autopsy report? Study Kennedy’s wounds? Study the reactions of the human body to gunshot wounds, and see if the exact moments of impact could actually be identified in the Zapruder film? And finally, where was all this manpower when it came time to match the eyewitness testimony to the proposed shooting scenario? Spying on Oswald’s mother? Watching Mark Lane?

[Pamela Brown]

We are all deeply indebted to Mark Lane for being the among the first to define what was wrong with the WCR. The clarity and definition of R2J was the best possible antidote for its legal wranglings. Because Lane is a lawyer he understands the tactics used by those of the govt, and has given us an orientation that can assist us, not only in understanding the Ongoing Coverup that the WCR represents, but provide us with an orientation for valuable research --always ask questions about the so-called evidence that we are allowed to have; define the reasonable doubt that exists in all the claims the govt makes.

The virulence of the attacks against him and his books give support to their long-lasting significance.

[B. A. Copeland]

I hope Mr. Lane even has a desire to answer thoughtful and honest questions before this thread implodes ....

[Don Jeffries]

I hope Mr. Lane even has a desire to answer thoughtful and honest questions before this thread implodes ....

I agree, B.A. I certainly hope Mark Lane sticks around on the forum.

[B. A. Copeland]

I hope Mr. Lane even has a desire to answer thoughtful and honest questions before this thread implodes ....

I agree, B.A. I certainly hope Mark Lane sticks around on the forum.

Cheers to that .

[Michael Hogan]

A previous Forum thread on Mark Lane: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=44119

[Gil Jesus]

I have been reading the postings for sometime now. I wish to express my deep appreciation for all of you who have commented on my work. I also have an announcement to make. After ten years I have now completed my autobiography. It took awhile since I have been practicing law for about one quarter of the life of the American judicial system. The book is Dancing With Bullies and is, I believe, the best thing I have written. For more information please contact me by email at mlane@marklane.com.

I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions or observations about Rush To Judgment, Plausible Denial and the fiction work of Vincent Bugliosi who apparently still believes that the world is flat. Rush To Judgment was thoroughly vetted by the CIA in 1966, before it was published. Somehow, that agency obtained a copy even before I did. It was unable to point to a single error in the book according to a CIA Memorandum that I was able to secure by Court Order under the Freedom of Information Act. If you read Bugliosi’s book, you will discover that he relied almost exclusively upon discredited FBI and CIA assertions about the facts.

Mark Lane

Mr Lane:

You probably don't remember me, but we met at the Wecht Symposium in 2003. Thank you for your work on the Kennedy Assassination over the years. Your courage in questioning the official lies and omissions of the Warren Commission gave rise to a generation of researchers whose revelations continue to rock the halls of secrecy even today.

We were certainly lied to, and thanks to partiots like yourself, we now know it.

Again, thank you sir and welcome to this forum.

[Peter McGuire]

I have been reading the postings for sometime now. I wish to express my deep appreciation for all of you who have commented on my work. I also have an announcement to make. After ten years I have now completed my autobiography. It took awhile since I have been practicing law for about one quarter of the life of the American judicial system. The book is Dancing With Bullies and is, I believe, the best thing I have written. For more information please contact me by email at mlane@marklane.com.

I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions or observations about Rush To Judgment, Plausible Denial and the fiction work of Vincent Bugliosi who apparently still believes that the world is flat. Rush To Judgment was thoroughly vetted by the CIA in 1966, before it was published. Somehow, that agency obtained a copy even before I did. It was unable to point to a single error in the book according to a CIA Memorandum that I was able to secure by Court Order under the Freedom of Information Act. If you read Bugliosi’s book, you will discover that he relied almost exclusively upon discredited FBI and CIA assertions about the facts.

Mark Lane

Mr Lane:

You probably don't remember me, but we met at the Wecht Symposium in 2003. Thank you for your work on the Kennedy Assassination over the years. Your courage in questioning the official lies and omissions of the Warren Commission gave rise to a generation of researchers whose revelations continue to rock the halls of secrecy even today.

We were certainly lied to, and thanks to partiots like yourself, we now know it.

Again, thank you sir and welcome to this forum.

You are a true American Patriot, Mr. Lane. Thank you very much for your work on this case and the truth in it.

I look forward to hearing from you on this forum.

Peter

[David Andrews]

Mr. Lane, I also first saw the extant Zapruder film at one of your college co-presentations on Dallas in 1974. Your pioneering book is one of the proofs that some of the very best and most resourceful works on historic events are written soon after them. You are an exemplar, and a catalyst.

Edited April 11, 2010 by David Andrews

[Peter McGuire]

Mr. Lane, I also first saw the extant Zapruder film at one of your college co-presentations on Dallas in 1974. Your pioneering book is one of the proofs that some of the very best and most resourceful works on historic events are written soon after them. You are an exemplar, and a catalyst.

The road show came to my University in 1975 which I am sure included the Zapruder film. The part of the demonstration that will forever stick in my mind was the suspicious deaths. I have studied many of them in detail; lefties killing themselves with their right hand, another committing "suicide" by blowing his head off with a shotgun. (most can not get themselves to pull the trigger and often don't even finish the job, much less that gruesome overkill), others were silenced by convenient overdoses or "random, unexplained murders ( with a fall guy).

Forget the London actuary; these deaths were associated with the assassination.

One of my favorite parts in Plausible Denial;

THE FACTS Page 54

Lee Harvey Oswald may never have visited Mexico City. He had not met Senora Duran in the Cuban Embassy there. He had neither plotted with Kostikov nor called him "Comrade Kostin."

In September 1963, the CIA, having planned to assassinate President Kennedy, established a false trail, a charade that would lead to Lee Harvey Oswald after the murder in Dallas. The plan was brilliantly conceived. Not only would it implicate an innocent man in the crime of and thus spare the CIA from responsibility, but it would focus attention upon Oswald, a man with connections to the FBI. The FBI connection would freeze J. Edgar Hoover into inaction because of fear that his bureau might be terminally embarrassed.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Don Bailey]

What an honor it is to have you on the forum Mr. Lane, you are a hero of mine in this fight for the truth.

Question: What is your opinion on where Hunt and Sturgis were during the shooting?

I look forward to reading your new book!!!

Don

[Peter McGuire]

What an honor it is to have you on the forum Mr. Lane, you are a hero of mine in this fight for the truth.

Question: What is your opinion on where Hunt and Sturgis were during the shooting?

I look forward to reading your new book!!!

Don

I also look forward to reading Mr. Lane's new book. Regarding Hunt at the time of the shooting, Mr. Lane writes;

From Plausible Denial "The Trial" page 242

"At the first trial Hunt v. Liberty Lobby Liberty Lobby's lawyer had agreed that Hunt had not been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the court had read the stipulation to that effect to the jury. It was Hunt's contention that the stipulation extended to any subsequent proceeding and that the defendants were obliged to honor it at the present trial. I had sent a letter to the plaintiff's attorneys stating that the stipulation was no longer binding and asserting that at trial our primary defense would focus on Hunt's role in the assassination, including his presence in Dallas at the decisive time."

Could you join in Mr. Lane, regarding Don’s question about Hunt and Sturgis?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Peter McGuire