Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Lane


Recommended Posts

The simpletons would have you believe Mark Lane is a man who believes in men from outer space, or something like that that would make you think he is not to be believed....because they had to discredit him. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This man, Mark Lane has done more for the case than anyone in my opinion.

It is easy to see that this just a bunch a baloney. This man Mark Lane had to be discredited because he is, in fact in my opinion the most important "first generation" researcher in the JFK case.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When approached by the grieving mother Marguerite Oswald, Lane thought, " of course , the idea intrigued me. However there were obstacles that I thought to be insurmountable."

Yea. How about his only paying client who would then in fact drop him as a client?

Mark Lane in his early career worked for the poor and unrepresented.

So he now represented the mother of the man who served as the patsy in an operation to eliminate a president of the United States.

Think he is not going to be attacked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The genesis of the sixties revolts was in fact the disbelief of the official version of the Kennedy Assassination.

If you would read Plausible Denial, and the efforts Lane made in the aftermath of the assassination with students in his attempt to educate them about what really happened , you would understand what I mean.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Speech"

" I formed the Citizens Committee of Inquiry in New York City in a small office on lower Fifth Avenue. A number of young men and women volunteered to help. Together we oranized lectures at college and law schools and appearances on a few local radios and television programs."

I have got to stop because imagine that? In the year after the assassination ground level opposition against the official version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Lane was the "star" of the critical community when I first started studying this case (mid-1970s). I joined his group Citizens Committee of Inquiry as a teenager, and one of my most memorable afternoons was one I spent in his office in the winter of 1976. He spoke to us (there was one other teen volunteer there) for a long time, mostly about the long distance call he'd just gotten from comedian Freddie Prinze.

Lane's "Rush To Judgment" was essential reading for anyone interested in JFK's assassination, as was the accompanying film he made. His followup book, "A Citizen's Dissent" was also very interesting, as it gave one an insider's view of how it felt to be fighting for truth against such powerful foes.

If there was a JFK Researcher's Hall of Fame, Mark Lane would be one of the first inductees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the “Florida trial” the civil trial regarding the assassination of John F Kennedy, Mark Lane won a from a jury of our peers that upheld, that Howard Hunt, a long time Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and CIA employee was in Dallas on the day the president was shot.

Hunt v. Liberty Lobby gave more credibility to the notion that the CIA was involved in the assassination.

Mark Lane writes in Plausible Denial, “Did you read about that verdict in your local newspaper? Did you hear about that verdict on your favorite TV or radio network news program? Of course not. They are not allowed to write that."

No wonder there are attempts to discredit Mark Lane by those covering up the crime.

Even McAdams has a tough time with Lane on Plausible Denial.

“Unlike most conspiracy books, which pepper readers with factoids, Lane seems to be very careful to avoid saying things that are provably untrue. Rather, by the careful withholding of evidence and the calculated spinning of the evidence he actually presents, he makes his case. And unlike most conspiracy authors, he seems to actually know what he’s doing.”

Well thanks John! You mean the highly educated Lane knows what he is doing? Imagine that! So by somehow checking his facts and writing an honest book, he is somehow…what? Sneaky? Honest? Searching for the truth?

Careful withholding of evidence? Is that the best you can do, John? Why would he do that now? He won his case!

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Lane was the "star" of the critical community when I first started studying this case (mid-1970s). I joined his group Citizens Committee of Inquiry as a teenager, and one of my most memorable afternoons was one I spent in his office in the winter of 1976. He spoke to us (there was one other teen volunteer there) for a long time, mostly about the long distance call he'd just gotten from comedian Freddie Prinze.

Lane's "Rush To Judgment" was essential reading for anyone interested in JFK's assassination, as was the accompanying film he made. His followup book, "A Citizen's Dissent" was also very interesting, as it gave one an insider's view of how it felt to be fighting for truth against such powerful foes.

If there was a JFK Researcher's Hall of Fame, Mark Lane would be one of the first inductees.

Kenny O'Donnell said; " You are right, I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it could not have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warren was born in 1891 and was raised in

Bakersfield CA.

I believe that he was forced by Johnson to put his name on a report that will go down as the biggest government lie in history.

Warren had no choice in matter and I do not blame him.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simpletons would have you believe Mark Lane is a man who believes in men from outer space, or something like that that would make you think he is not to be believed....because they had to discredit him. Nothing could be further from the truth. This man, Mark Lane has done more for the case than anyone in my opinion.

They had to discredit him. It is now going to be my five year project or more that that is just a bunch a baloney, and in fact, this man Mark Lane, had to be discredited because he is, in fact in my opinion the most important "first generation" researcher in the JFK case.

correct, Peter! ! ! And, there isn't a lone nut disinfo agent -or- simple minded xxxxx that isn't (or wouldn't be) terriifed at the idea of debating case facts with him. Mark Lane has no peer re this case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
Warren was born in 1891 and was raised in

Bakersfield CA.

I believe that he was forced by Johnson to put his name on a report that will go down as the biggest government lie in history.

Warren had no choice in matter and I do not blame him.

Peter,

A few questions for you, if you don't mind.

Were Warren, his wife, and his daughter Virginia, all close friends of Conrad Hilton?

Was Henry Crown a close friend of Hilton, largest Hilton Hotels Corp. investor, and second largest Hilton Hotels stockholder?

Despite the information given to Tom Clark by James Ragen in 1946 that Hilton, Crown, and Walter Annenberg were the "high places," the activities of the Chicago mob led to, (decribed by Drew Pearson in his Oct. 26, 1963 column, and specifically named in his "Diaries, 1949-1959" published in 1974) Tom Clark chose Crown's son, John as one of his two annual law clerks in 1956, and Warren chose the son of accused Chicago mob lawyer, Paul Ziffern as his own law clerk in 1966. This information seems to have no influence on your opinion of Warren. Why?

Have you considered the reports that Sidney Korshak was a close friend of Patrick Hoy when Crown hired Hoy as first outside the Crown family president of Material Service div. of General Dynamics and as exec. V.P. of Gen. Dyn., and that Hoy recommended that Hilton and Crown put Korshak on retainer? Or, that the 1977 IRE reporters (article image below) and Ovid Demaris wrote in :Captive City," that Crown was a close friend of Sam Nanini,

Full article= http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1XkRA...+webb&hl=en

4290078988_647c94c0ce_o.jpg

In addition to all of the above, have you considered that Earl Warren put the name of Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., before the other six Warren commissioners in the hope that Jenner could be named senior assistant counsel, and that Jenner was put in the position of attempting to determine if the shootings of the president or of Oswald were the acts of conspirators....or not; and that Tom Clark was one of only two specific names offered by

Warren to his fellow commissioners. vouching for the appointment of Jenner?

Did you know that Crown's son John, left Tom Clark's employ at the Supreme Court in 1957 and was hired by Jenner's law firm in 1959 and became a partner of the firm sometime in the 1960's? Since Tom Clark only hired two law clerks, at most, per year, do you think Tom Clark did not know that John Crown was the son of the man Ragen had named as a mob boss, or that John Crown was employed at Jenner's law firm in 1963?

Please read the 1977 article. Sam Nanini's name appears almost dead center in the article image. Warren's 1966 clerk's father, Paul Ziffern is name in the article, too.

What would Warren have had to do to arouse your suspicions that he was no innocent, pressured by power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...