Robert Prudhomme Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Sooo, if my logical deductions tell me the throat wound was a wound of exit, and came from the breakup of the nose section of a very special bullet that entered the back of JFK's skull, just to the right of the external occipital protuberance, does that mean I am a disinfo agent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Sooo, if my logical deductions tell me the throat wound was a wound of exit, and came from the breakup of the nose section of a very special bullet that entered the back of JFK's skull, just to the right of the external occipital protuberance, does that mean I am a disinfo agent? It would be compassionate to make leeway for visions of fantasy or insanity that had disregarded significant evidences to draw such a frivolous conclusion, we could pity your demise. Just kidding Robert I would say prove it. Edited January 3, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Robert - just curious - where do you think the shot originated that entered the back of JfK's skull and exited the throat? What kind of gun was used, and who fired it? I realize it's all conjecture, and I don't dismiss your scenario out of hand. I just went throught the entirety of John Judge's original piece on Jonestown, in order to glean what I could about Mark Lane's activities there. I still think that the most logical conclusion is that he was an attention seeker as well as an earnest critic, and that senior moment is probably the best way to describe his recent statement. But reviewing Jonestown is sure scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 OFF TOPIC Robert P. I went on UTube to review Jonestown after Paul B. mentioned it and ran across another John Judge video that I had meant to bring to your attention if you hadn't already seen it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZZnuJ_8Xs8 John Judge is talking about the wound to President Reagan, he was not shot with a bullet, he was wounded with a disc. By all accounts the shot was also silent. Just something for you to ponder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Paul, after listening to "John Judge - Cults, Lies and Videotape" portion pertaining to Jonestown and the CIA / intelligence connections I feel stronger than ever that LANE must fully explain his association with Jonestown, this association must be fully disclosed and uncovered because at face value this association with the CIA poses an insurmountable conflict that disintegrates all credibility of LANE. Why would the CIA bring into one of its darkest most evil projects a major published opponent of their organizations past most traitorous dastardly deed. Fact is they wouldn't they would not include anyone in a dark project that had not been carefully vetted or was not a proponent of the deeds of the CIA. Why would the CIA take the chance on an outsider, specially with LANE???? My opinion - I no longer trust LANE, not now or any work he has published, all of my books of LANES have been trashed. It is one thing to not support Posner or Bugliosi but to put money into the pocket of a poser that played me for the fool, is regrettable. Can I prove it, no. Can I think it and believe it is true, yes. Do as you wish, but if you have not uncovered a reasonable explanation for LANE - CIA connection then ask yourself if you might be a fool? How many times have we seen our heroes turn out to be nothing but villains. 'Americas dad' Bill Cosby seems to be the latest, but the political world is littered with politicians proclaiming virtue only to find out they frequent prostitutes or cheat on their spouse or their lives are fulfilled with illegal drugs which they openly campaign against, then look at the pious religious leaders who have fallen because of revelations of their follies. A Bishop that covered up child molestation became a pope, this is the world we live in. People are not always what they seem or that we perceive. Think on this... Why would some members of the WC take the chance to debate against an opponent that was capable of unraveling the lies and revealing the truth? The members of the WC had to know the WCR was a lie, do you think that they would march off to a potential ambush they may not have been able to recover from, do you think the government would have allowed a real debate that might have redefined the perspective on the assassination or significantly influence public opinion? The debates were fixed and resulted in nothing but idle entertainment. They have successfully fooled us for 51 years. Maybe it is time to put this to an end. Edited January 4, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Sooo, if my logical deductions tell me the throat wound was a wound of exit, and came from the breakup of the nose section of a very special bullet that entered the back of JFK's skull, just to the right of the external occipital protuberance, does that mean I am a disinfo agent? It would be compassionate to make leeway for visions of fantasy or insanity that had disregarded significant evidences to draw such a frivolous conclusion, we could pity your demise. Just kidding Robert I would say prove it. Check out the thread about the back shot I started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Mr. Mady - I had never seen the video you posted, or even heard any of that material. Astounding. Getting back to Lane, i fully understand your points about Lane and about fallen heroes generally. One objection to your logic is your assertion that an intelligence operation needs to be totally secure. Clearly Jonestown was not, yet it was successful. The Warren Commission, if we consider it an intelligence operation, was not. The control of information after the fact has a lot to do with the success of any coverup. I agree that Lane has a lot to answer for. I wonder if anyone here has read his book on Jonestown. I have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Paul, if you have not watched John Judges video "John Judge - Cults, Lies and Videotape" it has two parts, all of it is very interesting but he talks specifically about Jonestown starting about 10 minutes from the end of part one and into part two, it is only 15 or 20 minutes long, well worth the time to listen. I thought that this video was what you were referring to when you referenced John Judge's work on Jonestown, my mistake. John Judge was one of a few people that I have trust in. I agree with part of what you said on bringing people into black ops programs that not everyone knows what is happening nor can a program like Jonestown be entirely obscured. But the question remains, why would they have brought into the program an antagonist that could have uncovered additional information on the CIA that could be detrimental to their image, it would seem logical that if LANE were an 'enemy' to the CIA he would not have been invited to come in contact with their program. The CIA chose LANE because of his association with the CIA and when the program went bad, LANE was left in a awkward situation that exposed the relationship he had with the CIA. Edited January 4, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 So perhaps Lane was tarnished by his association with Jonestown, allowed in so to speak so that he would be discredited later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Paul, that is a possibility that LANE was brought in to ultimately discredit him. But the backfire would have been revenge by LANE to prove the CIA connection to Jonestown and his lack of any knowledge of this connection, did he react in a manner to disclose the CIA, was LANE aware that Jonestown was a mind control experiment? What did he believe they were doing in Giana and who was funding Jonestown? Did he ever visit Jonestown and see what was happening there? go back and watch 'Rush to Judgment' and analyze the questions LANE asks as well as what would have been important issues that would have helped define the assassination he seemed to avoid. I would weigh that including LANES ineffectiveness to present a cohesive theory that was damaging to the WC as well as debates that in all likelihood was little more than carefully controlled staged entertainment. And don't forget to include his latest 'senior' moment recently taped. I would analyze all of this to determine the trustfulness of LANE. It is not one thing that tips the scales it is a body of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IB5JGfxIxFk Penn Jones, Jr, interviews Mark Lane on the mysterious deaths of persons connected to the JFK assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm sorry, Robert, but the thought occurs that you know little of Lane. The criticism of Lane regarding Jonestown has long been that he helped convince Jones the CIA was after him, and helped create the climate in which Jones felt the only way his church could stay together was in death. Lane was visiting Jonestown when the massacre occurred. He wrote a book on what he witnessed. While I have not read the book, it is my understanding he thought outsiders were at least partly responsible for the massacre. I did hear him discuss the incident with a guy on the street in Pittsburgh in 2013. The guy asked him if he thought the incident was faked or some such thing, and Lane said that it was for real, and that he'll never forget running through the jungle while in fear for his life. I don't recall his blaming the CIA for it, or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Pat, I do not know LANES side of the story. Where has he posted the details? I would be interested to know if you have listened to "John Judge - Cults, Lies and Videotape" portion pertaining to Jonestown and the CIA / intelligence connections ? I would be interested to hear your comments on what John Judge has to say about Jonestown and what happened to the people enslaved there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Pat, I do not know LANES side of the story. Where has he posted the details? I would be interested to know if you have listened to "John Judge - Cults, Lies and Videotape" portion pertaining to Jonestown and the CIA / intelligence connections ? I would be interested to hear your comments on what John Judge has to say about Jonestown and what happened to the people enslaved there. I spoke with John Judge on several occasions. I believe he spoke about Jonestown on one of these occasions. I seem to recall him telling me that Jones had been a test subject for MKUltra. Did he think the massacre was part of a CIA plot? I honestly don't remember. As far as Lane, here is a link to his book on Jonestown: http://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Poison-Mark-Lane/dp/080153206X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420436366&sr=8-1&keywords=the+strongest+poison The media's initial take on the massacre was that the vast majority of people killed had unquestioningly committed suicide. As an attorney for The People's Temple, Lane was aware of the internal politics. I gather from the reviews of his book that he broke ranks with the mainstream, claimed most of the victims were murdered, and blamed both Jones and Jones' enemies in the government for the tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Robert, Pat - I listened to Judge, and also to Mae Brussell. She in particular was not a fan of Lane, and had some good reasons, in particular the radio show I listened to, which Gaal posted on another thread, about Lane's connection with Larry Flynt. Lane made some comments about Brussell's research which were uncomplimentary to say the least, and that is troubling. Don Jeffries has an interesting chapter about the '60's in his new book in which he points out that many of the counterculture heroes had CIA ties. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish whether spokespersons for social movements, such as Leary, Lane, Jesse Jackson, Kunstler, and many others, become prominent due to their own ambitious natures, or to their intelligence connections. It is certainly true that some of these leaders or spokespeople are placed front and center in order to control the directions these movements take. It's a viable intelligence strategy, and I have no doubt it has been done often. The question for me becomes which ones. I am beginning to wonder whether Mark Lane is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now