Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Lane Responds


Mark Lane
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think he was doing what all lawyers do Paul.

Look at the HSCA report (this is in the context of the murder of MLK):

"Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane [...] the facts were often at variance with Lane's assertions [...] Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them [...] Lane's conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned."

Is he really typical of all lawyers? I don't think so. So why do people regard the likes of Mark Lane et al (Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, etc.) as truth-seekers, heroes, etc., when their work, and their contribution doesn't stand up to close scrutiny?

Is it really such a good thing that Mark Lane has joined this forum?

Maybe Mark can illuminate this aspect of his work.

That would be very interesting, yes.

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is, for those who like to hear things from the horse's mouth.

Those wishing to hear from the horse's other end still have their own spot to congregate.

Very amusing, well done. Though it would be slightly more effective coming from someone that is able to distinguish one end of a horse from its other.

If you're so certain that Mark Lane's work doesnt stand up to scrutiny, why haven't you posted anything on my "Mark Lane Challenge" elsewhere on this forum?

Because I enjoy a challenge.

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is, for those who like to hear things from the horse's mouth.

Those wishing to hear from the horse's other end still have their own spot to congregate.

Very amusing, well done. Though it would be slightly more effective coming from someone that is able to distinguish one end of a horse from its other.

No worries. Your avatar is sufficiently clear to preclude confusion.

More amusing by far would be to see your response to Martin Hay's challenge. It is easy to impugn Mark Lane by doing a cut and paste drive-by - using the words of other hacks, as you are wont to do - but not so simple to post your own observations. It would require you to actually know the topic at hand.

We've seen your kind here before. When you have no handy rejoinder to those who expose your chicanery, you simply ignore the offending post until it scrolls into the ether. To wit:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15647

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries. Your avatar is sufficiently clear to preclude confusion.

Chuff chuff.

What hacks? The words came from the transcript of a telephone conversation, the Warren Report and the HSCA Report.

When I read a slew of posts from people who describe Mark Lane as an honest, courageous, integral man, I feel the need to draw attention to evidence to the contrary, of which there seems to be plenty. Tell me Robert, what is wrong with highlighting what has already been observed by others? Do I always have to dig up my own, unique observations?

And why doesn't Mr Lane prove that these impugners are incorrect? I heard him on Black Op Radio a while back, complaining about Bugliosi's 'libellous' attack on him in Reclaiming History. As far as I could tell, all Mr Lane could find wrong was an address. Big deal.

As for that thread you quoted, just look at your initial response. What's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the proper way to deal with someone like Paul is to ignore him, he's already taken up too much space on this topic already. The challenge has been extended, if he's got anything of worth to say he'll take me up on it. And if he has nothing substantial to add, he'll continue making personal attacks without addressing the evidence.

That's right Martin, the proper way to deal with the simple, blindingly obvious truth is to ignore it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the proper way to deal with someone like Paul is to ignore him, he's already taken up too much space on this topic already. The challenge has been extended, if he's got anything of worth to say he'll take me up on it. And if he has nothing substantial to add, he'll continue making personal attacks without addressing the evidence.

That's right Martin, the proper way to deal with the simple, blindingly obvious truth is to ignore it. :lol:

Paul, as a long time member and observer of behavior on this forum, I have noticed that when any person of historical interest comes here, there is someone waiting to pounce on them and make their bones by "exposing" them or some such thing. Sometimes they have legitimate complaints. Sometimes not. It's clear from your posts, however, that you plan on harassing Mr. Lane on points raised and spun by others with the clear-cut agenda of discrediting Mr. Lane.

If you do so, you should at least first familiarize yourself with Mr. Lane's previous response to Bugliosi, etc, starting here:

Lane's response to Bugliosi

After reading Mr. Lane's article, and taking notes, you should start a separate thread in which you ask him questions not answered in his article. He may or may not respond to this thread, I don't know. But that's the proper way to ask the man questions. Posting on every thread in which he participates and saying "But Mark, what about Bugliosi..." can only be considered harassment.

And no, there's no double standard. I, for one, think it would be swell if the likes of McAdams, Posner, Myers, and Bugliosi were members of this forum, so that people could ask them questions, which they would be pressured into answering. Tellingly, however, none of them will participate in a forum such as this, where the weaknesses of their argument and occasional lapse into lying would rapidly be exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the proper way to deal with someone like Paul is to ignore him, he's already taken up too much space on this topic already. The challenge has been extended, if he's got anything of worth to say he'll take me up on it. And if he has nothing substantial to add, he'll continue making personal attacks without addressing the evidence.

That's right Martin, the proper way to deal with the simple, blindingly obvious truth is to ignore it. :lol:

Paul, as a long time member and observer of behavior on this forum, I have noticed that when any person of historical interest comes here, there is someone waiting to pounce on them and make their bones by "exposing" them or some such thing. Sometimes they have legitimate complaints. Sometimes not. It's clear from your posts, however, that you plan on harassing Mr. Lane on points raised and spun by others with the clear-cut agenda of discrediting Mr. Lane.

If you do so, you should at least first familiarize yourself with Mr. Lane's previous response to Bugliosi, etc, starting here:

Lane's response to Bugliosi

After reading Mr. Lane's article, and taking notes, you should start a separate thread in which you ask him questions not answered in his article. He may or may not respond to this thread, I don't know. But that's the proper way to ask the man questions. Posting on every thread in which he participates and saying "But Mark, what about Bugliosi..." can only be considered harassment.

And no, there's no double standard. I, for one, think it would be swell if the likes of McAdams, Posner, Myers, and Bugliosi were members of this forum, so that people could ask them questions, which they would be pressured into answering. Tellingly, however, none of them will participate in a forum such as this, where the weaknesses of their argument and occasional lapse into lying would rapidly be exposed.

Is there a way to ban this OSSI DID IT prayer mill Baker from the forum? (To him everything is clear. He is nothing than a "case closed xxxxx.")I admire M. Lane very much, he was the man who defeated E.H Hunt in court, by convincing a grand jury, that Hunt, Sturgis, Lorenz, etc were in Dallas the day prior to the assassination...I don't wanna see Mark Lane offended by this little man p.baker...

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, like Tim perhaps, perform a useful function imo, They represent a particular segment of the population. If they can't be suaded, what chance do we have with those who are not forum mebers/readers. There's a lot of to and fro insults but little really decicive counterpoints that would suade the casual viewer, who only sees a cat fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, like Tim perhaps, perform a useful function imo, They represent a particular segment of the population. If they can't be suaded, what chance do we have with those who are not forum mebers/readers. There's a lot of to and fro insults but little really decicive counterpoints that would suade the casual viewer, who only sees a cat fight.

There in lies your problem my-man... you think others will be persuaded by the missives they see posted here? Where have you been? Educational discourse? Well, if your looking for rational case evidence discussion, check other *research* forums. This board has always been infested with .john wannabes.... for the uninitiated: the lone NUTS, WCR/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome type of wannabes.

Now, I for one want to hear about Mr. Lane"s new book, if you don't mind. If I want to hear Mark Lane beat up Vinnie daBug Bugliosi, I'll move on over to Black Op Radio, find his pieces in the archives (of which there are more than a few). I even suspect Vincent knows he far outclassed with this guy Mark Lane... isn't that right David Von Pein [sic]?

DHealy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, lissen up fella, naw, I don't mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, thanks to you I was first able to view the Zapruder film at one of your college lectures in New Haven back in the early 70's. My question is, did you ever get the see the "other" Zapruder film like several researchers have including the late Rich DellaRosa which depicts an unedited/undoctored version including the limo stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for joining the forum, Mark.

I read and thoroghly enjoyed Plausible Denial.

I would be interested to hear your input with respect to the alleged "deathbed confession" of EHH, particularly since you did such a fine job of eviscerating him at his deposition.

I believe that he was an essential player in the assassination and you certainly outed him during the Liberty Lobby litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are some examples of how Mark Lane was handled. They couldn't say he was wrong ( or kill him ) so they had to discredit him.

On eslcafe nowwhereman writes:

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.

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

Edited by Peter McGuire
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...