Peter McGuire Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) William Buckley tries his best to trip up "Smokin" Mark Lane in this 1966 interview. Thanks DVP! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkOLMxGrgs Edited July 20, 2010 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 William Buckley tries his best to trip up "Smokin" Mark Lane in this 1966 interview. Thanks DVP! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=forums&module=post§ion=post&do=reply_post&f=126&t=16241&qpid=197878 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkOLMxGrgs I watched the videos. One can observe what a dangerous snake this W. F. Buckley junior was...but Lane acts calm as hell...despite his pipe seems a bit out of order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) In part 3, Buckley reveals his "tell" ( his left ear moves when he lies) while Lane explains very clearly the lies contained in the Warren Report cover-up. Only Buckelys arrogance gets him through the interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53nmBiRuEmE&feature=PlayList&p=A8BA50A8ABBDC5AC&playnext=1&index=37 Edited July 22, 2010 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) In part 3, Buckley reveals his "tell" ( his left ear moves when he lies) while Lane explains very clearly the lies contained in the Warren Report cover-up. Only Buckley’s arrogance gets him through the interview. Only the likes of Mark Lane should have attempted this interview with a snake as you say of man called Buckley. I am sure Buckley and his producers regretted it. No wonder Lane had to be discredited. "Some people would like really like to know who killed Kennedy" Buckley- "a national obsession" the beginnings of "conspiracy theorists" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ullKq7LfG9s&feature=PlayList&p=A8BA50A8ABBDC5AC&index=38&playnext=2 Edited July 22, 2010 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ullKq7LfG9s&feature=PlayList&p=A8BA50A8ABBDC5AC&index=38&playnext=2 In part 4, the Mouser is discussed by these two where Buckley can only change the subject. When Lane explains clearly how Ruby should have not had access to the basement - Buckley cites Julius Caeser. They discuss what was my understanding when I was a boy, that the the whitewash "healed the nation," and the truth would disrupt it. (the nation) Lane delivers a near knockblow blow in the 4th round when Buckley foolishly tries to bring up the "earth is round" analagy. But Buckley will emerge to fight in the final round. Edited July 22, 2010 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) Part 5. Buckley: "it was the work of a madman" while Lane introduces questions about Oswald the patsy." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR4CGUkhGsk Lane refuses to speculate on who was behind the assassination while Buckley tries to be funny. Mr. Lane simply asks for an open investigation. The debate ends on a cordial note. Edited July 22, 2010 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) William F. Buckley was a good friend of E. Howard Hunt and served with him in the CIA. It is no surprise that William F. Buckley was also CFR. CIA Republican Buckley defends Democrat Lyndon Johnson, H.L. Hunt and Warren Commission. 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkOLMxGrgs 2) http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+lane+william+buckley Mark Lane's revolutionary book "Rush to Judgement" had been published earlier in 1966: http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Judgment-Mark-Lane/dp/1560250437 Edited May 19, 2011 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) "Bump" to enable merge with post immediately above this post.... Edited May 19, 2011 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 :blink:William F. Buckley still sounds as though he is talking in a tunnel..... partially humming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Mr. Lane simply asks for an open investigation. The debate ends on a cordial note. THank you for posting this series, Peter. It is MOST interesting. I have MANY criticisms of Mark Lane, but I will mention only one: I think Lane shows his lack of CAHONES when he tells Buckley that Earl Warren should NOT be impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) THank you for posting this series, Peter. It is MOST interesting. I have MANY criticisms of Mark Lane, but I will mention only one: I think Lane shows his lack of CAHONES when he tells Buckley that Earl Warren should NOT be impeached. As usual, Carroll misrepresents the intent of what someone actually said by the employment of abbreviation and inaccuracy. Buckley: Do you think Warren should be impeached? Lane: I don't think he should be impeached. I think his report should be impeached. The impeach Earl Warren phrase undoubtedly stemmed from the billboards and bumper stickers that appeared throughout the South after Warren's significant efforts (Brown vs. Board of Education) to end desegregation in the United States of America. This helped make Warren a perennial enemy of the far right. And elements of the far right were certainly suspected by many Americans as possibly having something to do President Kennedy's murder. Obviously, this rankled the arch-conservative Buckley. Perhaps Carroll's assessment is colored by Lane's refusal to claim that Oswald was totally innocent of any involvement in the President's murder. During the segment, Buckley attempted to get Lane to say what could not be proven in 1966, or today. Lane was too smart to fall for the trap. Lane was unwilling to exonerate Oswald of any and all involvement in the assassination. The most he was willing to allow to Buckley: "Had Oswald lived he could not have been proven guilty, had he faced trial, based on the evidence the Commission was able to secure." Certainly reasonable in light of what was and wasn't known in 1966. And still reasonable today. Lane's courage in opposing the Warren Commission's attempts to frame Lee Oswald (Oz, as Carroll calls him) and Lane's courage in dealing with the issues caused him by the FBI and mainstream media have been chronicled extensively. Mark Lane was by far the best advocate the late Lee Oswald had back then. Lane's achievements are indicative of considerably more courage than exhibited by internet jockeys that apparently delight in making nasty and spurious charges about people that they would likely never make to their face. Edited May 19, 2011 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Buckley: Do you think Warren should be impeached? Lane: I don't think he should be impeached. Of course Warren SHOULD have been impeached for the fraudulent investigation he conducted, as Lane well knew. Perhaps Carroll's assessment is colored by Lane's refusal to claim that Oswald was totally innocent of any involvement in the President's murder. Good call, Mr. Hogan. I believe the hottest spot in hell is reserved for lawyers who BETRAY their clients as Mark Lane did. Lane was unwilling to exonerate Oswald of any and all involvement in the assassination. The most he was willing to allow to Buckley: And if there was any justice, Lane would have been disbarred for failing to provide a competent defense for his client. Lane's achievements are indicative of considerably more courage than exhibited by internet jockeys that apparently delight in making nasty and spurious charges about people that they would likely never make to their face. Actually you are wrong ONCE AGAIN. I made these charges to Mark Lane's FACE at the Duquesne conference in 2003, and Lane ran away with tail between legs. I've got it on audiotape, would give a million bucks to have it on video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Lane's achievements are indicative of considerably more courage than exhibited by internet jockeys that apparently delight in making nasty and spurious charges about people that they would likely never make to their face. Good call, Mr. Hogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Good call, Mr. Hogan. Good call on pointing out (inadvertently on your part) that Mark Lane BETRAYED his client, which for lawyers is the only UNFORGIVABLE SIN. As Lane virtually acknowledged by running away when I confronted him at Duquesne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Lane's achievements are indicative of considerably more courage than exhibited by internet jockeys that apparently delight in making nasty and spurious charges about people that they would likely never make to their face. I made these charges to Mark Lane's FACE at the Duquesne conference in 2003, and Lane ran away with tail between legs. I've got it on audiotape, would give a million bucks to have it on video Yeah, right. Sure you did. Edited May 20, 2011 by Michael Hogan 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