This Sunday's NYT book review, Bugliosi

[David G. Healy]

http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/05/...21&emc=eta1

[Myra Bronstein]

http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/05/...21&emc=eta1

Woah. I haven't see the NY Times this gleeful since Bush stole the 2000 election.

"So this is where one expects the reviewer to savage Bugliosi for all those wasted years and pages. Well, I can’t do it. The fact is, the darned book is pretty good. Putting aside its ridiculous length, I have to say “Reclaiming History” is in spots a delight to read. Bugliosi is refreshing because he doesn’t just pick apart the conspiracy theorists. He ridicules them, and by name, writing that “most of them are as kooky as a $3 bill.” Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” He quotes Harold Weisberg, the author of eight conspiracy-themed books, admitting that after 35 years of research, “much as it looks like Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence to support it.”

What Bugliosi has done is a public service; these people should be ridiculed, even shunned. It’s time we marginalized Kennedy conspiracy theorists the way we’ve marginalized smokers; next time one of your co-workers starts in about Oswald and the C.I.A., make him stand in the rain with the other outcasts. "

They're declaring war on researchers.

Figures. They've been protecting war profiteers for years.

XXXXX

Edited language.

Edited May 18, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[William Kelly]

http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/05/...21&emc=eta1

Woah. I haven't see the NY Times this gleeful since Bush stole the 2000 election.

"So this is where one expects the reviewer to savage Bugliosi for all those wasted years and pages. Well, I can't do it. The fact is, the darned book is pretty good. Putting aside its ridiculous length, I have to say "Reclaiming History" is in spots a delight to read. Bugliosi is refreshing because he doesn't just pick apart the conspiracy theorists. He ridicules them, and by name, writing that "most of them are as kooky as a $3 bill." Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, "unprincipled" and "a fraud." He quotes Harold Weisberg, the author of eight conspiracy-themed books, admitting that after 35 years of research, "much as it looks like Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence to support it."

What Bugliosi has done is a public service; these people should be ridiculed, even shunned. It's time we marginalized Kennedy conspiracy theorists the way we've marginalized smokers; next time one of your co-workers starts in about Oswald and the C.I.A., make him stand in the rain with the other outcasts. "

David Talbot: "...Instead of aggressively investigating the many lingering questions about Dallas, the mainstream media continued to discredit conspiracy theories, straining harder with each passing decade to prop up the increasingly moth-eaten Warren Report. The most prestigious news institutions - the ones with the power to unearth new information - put themselves instead at the government's service. The special reports on the assassination produced with numbing regularity by the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Time, and Newsweek inevitably rallied to the defense of the lone gunman theory - with editors, reporters and producers taking their cues in many cases from Warren Commission members, CIA and FBI officials, and media executives close to these government agencies. On some occassions, journalists who were intelligence assets simply funneled the government's version of Dallas directly to the press..."

Rather than aggressively investigating the many lingering quesitons about Dallas, the New York Times ridicules independent researchers who do actively investigate the many lingering questions about Dallas.

Count me out in the rain with the Outcasts.

And please note that this review was written by Bryan Burrough, former Wall Street Journal reporter and author of Barbarians at the Gate and a book on the early days of the FBI. So he does know better.

BK

Edited May 18, 2007 by William Kelly

[John Dolva]

"Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” "

Mark Lane was allied through connections with CORE. As early as june '61 (at the time when the Southern Intelligence Network was put in place and the FPCC came to their attention, prompting the infiltration and disruption that followed) Lane was identified as a de-segregationist, being arrested along with CORE lawyer P. E. Sutton in New Orleans as part of the beginning of the freedom rides.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...06|1|1|1|16188|

IOW Mark Lane, long before the assassination was targeted by the right wing.

Naming Mark Lane as a primary CT'er ignores the (more) primary sources like Revilo Oliver, Dan Smoot, Walker, Ned Touchstone et al.

I'd like to see how Bugliosi handles the right wing in his book.

[David G. Healy]

"Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” "

Mark Lane was allied through connections with CORE. As early as june '61 (at the time when the Southern Intelligence Network was put in place and the FPCC came to their attention, prompting the infiltration and disruption that followed) Lane was identified as a de-segregationist, being arrested along with CORE lawyer P. E. Sutton in New Orleans as part of the beginning of the freedom rides.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...06|1|1|1|16188|

IOW Mark Lane, long before the assassination was targeted by the right wing.

Naming Mark Lane as a primary CT'er ignores the (more) primary sources like Revilo Oliver, Dan Smoot, Walker, Ned Touchstone et al.

I'd like to see how Bugliosi handles the right wing in his book.

Not in depth, if that at all. Some say, he's one!

[Brian Smith]

"Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” "

Mark Lane was allied through connections with CORE. As early as june '61 (at the time when the Southern Intelligence Network was put in place and the FPCC came to their attention, prompting the infiltration and disruption that followed) Lane was identified as a de-segregationist, being arrested along with CORE lawyer P. E. Sutton in New Orleans as part of the beginning of the freedom rides.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...06|1|1|1|16188|

IOW Mark Lane, long before the assassination was targeted by the right wing.

Naming Mark Lane as a primary CT'er ignores the (more) primary sources like Revilo Oliver, Dan Smoot, Walker, Ned Touchstone et al.

I'd like to see how Bugliosi handles the right wing in his book.

Not in depth, if that at all. Some say, he's one!

The New York Times was one of the newspapers controlled by the CIA's Operation Mockingbird. Check out my little YouTube video "News media is controlled" -

[Pat Speer]

"Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” "

Mark Lane was allied through connections with CORE. As early as june '61 (at the time when the Southern Intelligence Network was put in place and the FPCC came to their attention, prompting the infiltration and disruption that followed) Lane was identified as a de-segregationist, being arrested along with CORE lawyer P. E. Sutton in New Orleans as part of the beginning of the freedom rides.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...06|1|1|1|16188|

IOW Mark Lane, long before the assassination was targeted by the right wing.

Naming Mark Lane as a primary CT'er ignores the (more) primary sources like Revilo Oliver, Dan Smoot, Walker, Ned Touchstone et al.

I'd like to see how Bugliosi handles the right wing in his book.

John, Mark Lane is undoubtedly the "Godfather" of the conspiracy theorist community. He was the one guy publishing articles and conducting talks BEFORE the Warren Commission had published anything. The FBI spent much of the last month of the Warren Commission investigating Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment sold more than all the other conspiracy books combined. It may have sold more than the Warren Report.

I have a sneakin' suspicion that underneath the charges of "fraud" and "xxxx" that Lane so frequently invokes, you will hear the whisper of "Jew." I don't think it's a coincidence that Lane, Weisberg, and Epstein etc aroused so much hatred among good ole wasps like JEH.

[William O'Neil]

"Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” "

Mark Lane was allied through connections with CORE. As early as june '61 (at the time when the Southern Intelligence Network was put in place and the FPCC came to their attention, prompting the infiltration and disruption that followed) Lane was identified as a de-segregationist, being arrested along with CORE lawyer P. E. Sutton in New Orleans as part of the beginning of the freedom rides.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...06|1|1|1|16188|

IOW Mark Lane, long before the assassination was targeted by the right wing.

Naming Mark Lane as a primary CT'er ignores the (more) primary sources like Revilo Oliver, Dan Smoot, Walker, Ned Touchstone et al.

I'd like to see how Bugliosi handles the right wing in his book.

John, Mark Lane is undoubtedly the "Godfather" of the conspiracy theorist community. He was the one guy publishing articles and conducting talks BEFORE the Warren Commission had published anything. The FBI spent much of the last month of the Warren Commission investigating Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment sold more than all the other conspiracy books combined. It may have sold more than the Warren Report.

I have a sneakin' suspicion that underneath the charges of "fraud" and "xxxx" that Lane so frequently invokes, you will hear the whisper of "Jew." I don't think it's a coincidence that Lane, Weisberg, and Epstein etc aroused so much hatred among good ole wasps like JEH.

Mark Lane is a distraction, yea he fingered ther RW, but not the RIGHT wing.

[Brian LeCloux]

Regarding Bugliosi quoting "Harold Weisberg, the author of eight conspiracy-themed books, admitting that after 35 years of research, 'much as it looks like Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence to support it.'":

I interviewed Mr. Weisberg on March 10, 1986 and for one of my questions I asked him to give a 1986 perspective on Oswald's intelligence connections. His answer:

"That would be complicated. Ah, I think the only way you can address that is to say that, ah, alot of fingers point to the possibility. It was, in fact, never investigated."

He then referred me to page 62 of his book Whitewash IV: JFK Assassination Transcript. Allen Dulles is talking to J. Lee Rankin during the January 27, 1964 Warren Commission executive session meeting and he tells Rankin that if someone was asking if an individual was in the CIA he [Dulles] would lie unless the President asked him. If an employee of the CIA was running an agent and was asked about it, Dulles replied, "He ought not to tell it under oath."

Never investigated, Mr. Bugliosi. How then, could Weisberg find this in government files----his essential mode of research---if it was never investigated?

[John Dolva]

I wonder sometimes who drove the agenda right at the start. Walker, in the plane between Dallas and Shreveport, made sure that the Pilots signed his ticket as soon as he heard of the assassination. IOW he was thinking conspiracy right off the bat. Revilo Oliver wrote a 'template' for many theory threads within a short time. Ned Touchstone, Elmore Douglass Greaves, Dan Smoot and others wrote various articles in their Publications in 1963.

Nutty as a lot of it was as a body of work it strikes me as a presentation of what to answer. I suspect many took the bait and off they went. On the continent it may have been different with Joachim Joesten's writings. I've never seen any of it but he wrote early extracts or summaries which are in the DPD files.

One thing that Mark Lane did, whatever one may think of how 'true his aim' was he did insist on a public WC hearing which was accorded him. I don't know anyone else who insisted on that. Did he wittingly or unwittingly lead people astray? I don't know. I've only been at this 'assassination research' for a couple of years now (which is why I value such things as Tom's historical pieces and Gil's videos as a way of 'steeping oneself in the times'. There was a time up till 12.30 when Kennedy was alive and real.)

Jew's naturally empathise with those who are oppressed, particularly again after Hitlers pogroms. In the south it often was with the blacks, as those who were highly educated who gravitated there could often only find employment in their educational establishments. Anti-semitism is certainly a theme. As is anti catholicism and despite the (patronising) early Boston-Irish-Assimilation movements the Irish. Add to the mix the leftwing and one has a 'communist', shooting at a True Patriot, a veteran of the Long Grey Line, and then a 'soft on communism' if not out right ' Traitorous Communist Niggerloving Catholic Irish' wannabe, shot by the same 'communist' (cop killer) who was shot by a Jewish drug addled Mobster.

Have I forgotten someone to point the finger at? Just reverse it and see what is NOT pointed at, the fine upstanding Southern Gentry and their lower class brethren for example.

Edited May 19, 2007 by John Dolva