MARK LANE HAS PASSED AWAY

[David Von Pein]

Comments by Gus Russo:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2016/05/mark-lane-who-asserted-that-kennedy-was.html?showComment=1463498645992#c4198072917922732516

Edited May 17, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I disagreed with Mark Lane about almost everything, but I sure enjoyed listening to him. He was a skilled public speaker and debater. He could get a crowd stirred up about the assassination better than just about anyone else on the planet. And I'm glad that many of his TV and radio appearances were recorded and saved for future generations to listen to. I've saved many of them here....

dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/mark-lane.html

P.S. --- A correction needs to be made in Keith Schneider's N.Y. Times article. [And it was later corrected.] Mark Lane most certainly did not "coin" the term "grassy knoll". Within literally minutes of the assassination on 11/22/63, there were on-air reporters and newsmen using the words "grassy knoll" to describe the now-famous grassy slope located on the western edge of Dealey Plaza in Dallas. Walter Cronkite, for example, uttered the words "grassy knoll" as early as 12:57 PM (CST) on Nov. 22 during one of the first bulletins aired on CBS-TV.

Edited May 17, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Kirk Gallaway]

Dave, why do you keep evading this question?

And what theory "that anyone with any sense"- (your words) would hold, do you subscribe to as to the accounts of the railway workers with the front row seats and the best acoustics? 1)The conspiracy theory that they are all liars?, that begs the question, why?? or 2)They are the victims of some smoky mass hysteria?

[David Von Pein]

They might have seen some smoke, Kirk. But I don't think it was gunsmoke.

[James DiEugenio]

Isn't Davey clever.

He is bringing in people--second hand-- to urinate on Mark Lane just a week after he died. I mean not just point out mistakes, but to really do a hatchet job on him. All the while insinuating, hey that's not me. LOL

A hatchett job: that is distorting the facts in order to smear a dead man.

For instance, in his link to Russo, Russo blames Lane and RTJ for poisoning a whole generation of kids against the CIA.

Well, in the index of RTJ, try and find a reference to the CIA. I could not. In fact, in skimming the book, I found only two glancing mentions. One in the part discussing Gerald Ford's assertions about Oswald being an intel agent, and the other is the mystery photo on "Oswald" in Mexico City. I could detect no negative assertions by Lane in either part.

What Lane was doing, and what he saved his best punches for, was destructing the Warren Commission. Which deserved to be pilloried from one end of the country to the other. Because they did a horrendous job that covered up the true circumstances of JFK's murder. Which led to the unleashing, for one thing, of 540,000 American combat troops into Vietnam, and a disaster in three countries in Indochina--which lasted for ten years--and which eventually took the lives of about 3 million people. I mean does it get worse than that?

In light of that, Mark Lane deservers Kudos for that he did I mean Davey did not even check RTJ before he posted Russo's baloney. Knowing Russo has a reputation for doing this kind of stuff.

Shameful.

As for the Liberty Lobby trial, why not mention the many excuses that collapsed about where Hunt was that day? Or the actual Angleton memo that Trento saw? It was Mark Lane who did that hard work.

Whether we buy into Lorentz, or not, Lane thought that was for the jury to decide. But the point is, he likely would have won the case without her. And in Hemming, Lane found a corroborating witness for the story. So its something he believed.

Now, can we get Gus Russo to talk about recruiting Dale Myers to go on national TV and deceive the American pubic about his absolutely ludicrous "Single Bullet Fact!"

A"fact" that has been exposed as nothing but pure malarkey by at least four critics who undressed Meyers down to his undrewear in four different ways. That is Harris, Mantik, Speer and Cranor.

Russo made that comment about Lane with something like that on his record? I mean that is amoral chutzpah.

But hey, there was big money in there for them both from ABC.

Edited May 18, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Shameful.

But what's even more shameful is the way Mark Lane tried to cast doubt on certain undeniable facts surrounding JFK's assassination, such as his ludicrous speculation in his 1967 film "Rush To Judgment" about Oswald possibly not being on Cecil McWatters' bus at all on 11/22/63, and the portion of the film where Lane seems to give some credence to the "Oswald In The Doorway" theory. Neither of those facts was in doubt in the slightest way by the time his film hit the theater screens in 1967, but to hear Lane tell it, maybe Oswald WAS in the doorway, and maybe Oswald never was on that bus.

Shameful behavior from Lane.

But those types of blatant distortions, coming as they did from an iconic conspiracy theorist and Warren Commission critic like Mr. Lane, just roll off the back of James DiEugenio, don't they Jim?

Movie review --- http://Rush-To-Judgment.blogspot.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Portions of Mark Lane's film 'Rush To Judgment' give the impression that Lane is grasping at straws -- any straws he can find -- to prove some peripheral point that MIGHT (in his opinion) lead to the idea of conspiracy in President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.

I like [the] film for its intriguing and forever-frozen-in-time 'Mid-1960s Feel' that it emits from start to finish. But, overall, the film is a weak effort, in my view, to prove that a conspiracy existed in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963."

David Von Pein

February 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited May 18, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

Shameful.

But what's even more shameful is the way Mark Lane tried to cast doubt on certain undeniable facts surrounding JFK's assassination, such as his ludicrous speculation in his 1967 film "Rush To Judgment" about Oswald possibly not being on Cecil McWatters' bus at all on 11/22/63, and the portion of the film where Lane seems to give some credence to the "Oswald In The Doorway" theory. Neither of those facts was in doubt in the slightest way by the time his film hit the theater screens in 1967, but to hear Lane tell it, maybe Oswald WAS in the doorway, and maybe Oswald never was on that bus.

Shameful behavior from Lane.

But those types of blatant distortions, coming as they did from an iconic conspiracy theorist and Warren Commission critic like Mr. Lane, just roll off the back of James DiEugenio, don't they Jim?

[...]

Man, are YOU dancing now! Party line, eh David? Like you stuck in 1964! Carry on.

[Douglas Caddy]

Joseph McBride posted on Facebook today:

Tomorrow night (Thursday) I will be among the guests on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio's tribute to the late Kennedy assassination researcher Mark Lane. Among the other guests will be Dick Gregory, Cyril Wecht, Donald Freed, and Jim DiEugenio. The show will be broadcast live at 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m. PST. http://www.blackopradio.com/schedule.htm

[Michael Walton]

Douglas, your link does not work. This one does:

http://www.blackopradio.com/schedule.html

[James DiEugenio]

I always like it when I smoke out Davey for who he really is. With the second hand stuff substituting for the things he himself wanted to say. And posting Russo's pile of BS without checking it since he was so eager to do the dump.

The lurkers like it too.

Let me give myself a hand.

Edited May 18, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Douglas, your link does not work. This one does:

http://www.blackopradio.com/schedule.html

This should be really good.

Len Osanic really did some nice work in bringing all these people together, some of the best of the critical community to commemorate the passing of a pioneer.

Kudos to Len and Black Op Radio for putting together a wonderful wake for Mark Lane.

[Sandy Larsen]

Shameful.

But what's even more shameful is the way Mark Lane tried to cast doubt on certain undeniable facts surrounding JFK's assassination, such as his ludicrous speculation in his 1967 film "Rush To Judgment" about Oswald possibly not being on Cecil McWatters' bus at all on 11/22/63, and the portion of the film where Lane seems to give some credence to the "Oswald In The Doorway" theory.

But Dave, Lane was right! Oswald may have been standing in the doorway. He said so himself in his interrogation. And since Oswald was never tried nor convicted, his word must be taken seriously. Besides, there is other evidence pointing in that direction. And evidence pointing against the second-floor Oswald/Baker encounter.

(I can't speak for the McWatters bus issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there is also reason to doubt that took place.)

[Clive Largey]

The men were obviously in front of the fence, going back and forth, whereby they were sometime visible to Bowers, and sometimes not, precisely as would be the case of Hudson and the man in plaid. (If they were behind the fence he would have seen them the whole time.)

Here's Bowers again: (When asked if there were any pedestrians between his location and Elm Street) "Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park....And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area...And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting...Ah - one of them, as I recall, was a middle-aged man, fairly heavy-set with - what looked like a white shirt. Uh - he remained in sight practically all of the time. The other individual was uh - slighter build and had either a plaid jacket or a plaid shirt on and he - uh -is walking back and forth was in and out of sight, so that I could not state for sure whether he was standing there at the time of the shots or not..."

Only if Hudson or another man walked toward the fence, if they both stayed on the path and steps they're invisible from the tower.

The two things you highlighted I read as suspicious behaviour.

Walking back and forth in and out of sight and disappearing behind a fence, sounds to me like a man worth talking to. Walk toward and then stand behind a vehicle parked up close to the fence and you're practically hidden.

It makes more sense to me than Hudson or the other man walking west across the grass, for what?

Some last minute weeding from the head grounds keeper?

Hudson said he was sat down on the steps talking with the man about his parking problems before the motorcade arrived and after over a decade of working in the area Bowers did not recognise him? Was Hudson new?

Two strangers hanging around near the shelter can work, at least one of whom was agitated and/or nervous.

The only thing obvious to me is that Lane should have pinned him down on the true position of the men. Is this flaw a key to the truth in the matter? Who knows? Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's what we're left with and you have to go with how you feel.

--------------------------------------

De'Antonio's next two projects are on line.

Vietnam 1968

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz8H_oi1ck0

Nixon 1971

http://www.imovies.ge/movies/14949

No real signs of anything close to that Bowers edit and easy to see why Mark liked him if you watch an interview of him which there are several available now.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Clive.

BTW, this became fodder for a food fight between Gary Mack and Dale Meyers.

Over what? Badge Man.

So they both used the data to back up their view of that issue. Mack for, Meyers against.

Not the best way to approach witness testimony.

[Clive Largey]

But, overall, the film is a weak effort, in my view, to prove that a conspiracy existed in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

Sorry to interject but weak compared to what David? What else do we have from that time period?

It certainly wasn't considered weak at the time by the BBC.

They had to fly some WC heavy hitters in to counter each point brought up whilst barely letting Lane speak and cut the film into sections to make that happen asap.

Your talking about now, now you find it weak, now you know all the facts.

Well the Mona Lisa is weak compared to a HR photograph of my left foot but artists can only work with what's available.

Would Leonardo even have bothered if he'd spent his time more wisely and invented the camera?

De'Antonio could not get access to all the footage he wanted and was on a tight budget(well, according to him) so it could have been better.

But that mid 60's feeling, that's good, there's hope for you yet.

Carry on.