MANY THINK THIS PICTURE IS BETTER THAN OLIVER STONE'S "JFK":"EXECUTIVE ACTION," 1973, BY MARK LANEhttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=8VAOVhwLkEU&feature=related ? JFK - executive action part1/9 - YouTube ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? Spooky statistics about the JFK Asassination - final sequence from the film EXECUTIVE ACTION.mpg - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JoHffrbB5M&feature=topics
HERE;S A BETTER LINK TO THE ENTIRE MOVIE? JFK - executive action part1/9 - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VAOVhwLkEU&list=PL0DC91C3181554614
Gary, I liked what Joseph McBride had to say. I had to look him up as I never heard of him. \Just a suggestion, it would be nice if you introduced speakers especially because they go on for such a long time. (Was that a clip of Johnny Carson I heard briefly?) Also, am wondering what the rules are on copyrights. Can one copy any audio material or only what is in the public domain and how can you tell the difference?
You can use short clips and long ones for critical review. All the JFK stuff is public domian
Excellent show Gary, as usual.Joan, why do you push Mark Lane's work so hard?He was a CIA operator, so you pushing him so hard makes me very suspicious of you.
I am a little confused regarding these new shows. At first I was excited, as Len seems to have a monopoly on the JFK subject. And he doesn't always have the widest portfolio of guests on his show -- I.e. Those that pass by the James D. filter. So I was thrilled when it was announced here there would be a new show, but each time I start them, they sound like re-mix/mash-ups of Black Op Radio with the occasional other tidbit mixed in at the expense of coherence. I like trying out new ideas, but I sure wish it was had more structure, or picked up where Black Op Radio leaves off. Is it not confusing to hear Len opening the shows? And one must have rigorous patience to get through the sound collages to see if their is new content. Contrast this with a nuts and bolt interview show. I am not even fond if Jim's breaks and prefer shows in the format of Red Ice, even if that means subscribing, but I am assuming Jim repurposes his shows to potentially syndicate them on regular radio? If not, I think the long song breaks are tedious and often break up shows and send me scrambling to fast forward. If it's business, I get it; if bit, the aesthetics are poor. And I am a huge Beatles fan! At the very very least, the shorter intros are a blessing. When I hear Fay Tripper begin, I start to get a frown! I think myself or any fan would live to compose a theme show opening, that is brief, promotes Jim, etc. I also find the blog system very difficult to post in because of whatever platform is on. Many a message has been lost when the cursor freezes, etc. also, it would be great to access the anthologies episodes by subject it through some other index. Sorting through by date does not make the useful library accessible. Okay, I vented. Nothing personal regarding this. It's just one of my favorite shows and I love idea if new JFK show; but maybe it should be a new JFK show then, with new guests, all the stuff Len is holding back on. Right now it feels like we are getting the psychedelic acid trip of old Bkack Op Episides in an Andy Warhol performance art stunt. With good information in there I probably haven't gotten to through frustration. Maybe after listening to Len's old rants, the holy name of a God is uttered; but if so, I can't listen long enough to know what the content is. But just a totally subjective opinion on execution only. Thanks for the work though! I appreciate all the generous work and effort. And the chops too. But I guess I like a good dielectic between JFK experts more than the MTV version of stuff I have heard already.
Jim and I decided to review all 50 episodes of Black Op's 50 reasons for 50 years. At first the episodes were 5 and 6 mins long and we were able to do 5 per show. However, as the year went on the shows began to be up to 20 minutes in length. We stuck to out words and completed them but took up two full two hour shows. The last show will never be structured that way again and the JFK show will take a new direction and I hope you be there with us. I will take your advise and identify the voices for clarity. Gary King PS: We are taking a week off. See you Wed.n the 14th
JIM! I keep posting this for you..OLIVER STONE HAS COME OUT AND STATED THAT 'The Zapruder film has been altered', backing up your analysis. It would be credible to acknowledge this when referencing him and his film.. THANKS!
Ian said:"Joan, why do you push Mark Lane's work so hard?He was a CIA operator, so you pushing him so hard makes me very suspicious of you."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Your constant smearing of Lane makes me suspicious of you. Are you CIA too? MI6 maybe?
Lane was the first to write and talk about the CIA's pivotal role in the assassination. Lane and Jim Garrison were the first to make this information public and why they were both sabotaged by the FBI and CIA. Garrison's office was bugged by the FBI and information was fed to Walter Sheridan and other journalists who made a mockery of Garrison's case. Ronald Reagan would not even allow extradition of Garrison's witnesses in the case from California. It's very suspicious you, Ian, to be casting aspersions on Lane, Garrison and others who were the first to finger the CIA. By your over attention to details not even presented in the case, you are diverting attention from the real issues. As Penn Jones Jr. says in the above piece, "This case was solved in 1967." PS, Ian. Are you throwing out the best movie on JFK, "Executive Action," because the screen play was written by Lane? How sad, Ian, because this really shows your ignorance of the early writings and other material on JFK.
Firstly, I have said nothing about Garrison, you are deliberately misrepresenting me there.Secondly, of course I would disregard anything by Lane, he has, from day one, been working for the CIA, he began his career in US Army Intelligence, which became the CIA.'The CIA did it' is a wonderful piece of gatekeeping if you think about it - it satisfies the minds of those who like to blame mysterious hidden hands without actually giving you the truth. That is how gatekeeping works - you lead the audience 95% of the way to the truth then divert them off in the wrong direction at the last moment.'The CIA did it' is simply not true, the CIA is a huge organisation that contains many competing factions. It also ignores the other involved parties - Texas Oil, East Coast finance, the Secret Service, the Joint Chiefs, the FBI, the Mafia, the Jewish Mob and Israel.It wouldn't be accurate to say the CIA carried out the actual hit either, although they certainly played a role.So in short, Lane is performing a classic piece of gatekeeping and if you can't see that then you're wasting all our time by posting the massive volumes of JFK info that you do. Or maybe you're performing gatekeeping tasks too?Do you actually bother to listen to Jim's shows on JFK? If you do listen, then how the hell do you think that Lane's 'the CIA did it' is a tenable thesis? Jim has covered the involvement of the other parties in such breadth and depth that you must be willfully ignoring his work in order to cling to Lane's thesis.Lane is a gatekeeper, pure and simple, and his CIA thesis is pure, classical gatekeeping.
Well, there is no evidence of my employment by the inteligence services, whereas there is a large body of evidence against Mark Lane.Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the fiasco going on with the AFP lately, with Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper?They have both exposed themselves as cointelpro over the Sandy Hook affair and other false flags or recent times, perhaps you missed the debates Jim Fetzer had with Piper?The whole fiasco exposed the AFP as a cointelpro op and guess who owns the AFP?That's right, Mark Lane. How did Lane gain control of the AFP? After his fellow Zionist Jews in the ADL bankrupted the Spotlight in a legal case where Lane represented the Spotlight.The recent developments with the AFP are not the sole reason to point the cointelpro finger at Lane, they are merely the latest in a long line of reasons.
"By your over attention to details not even presented in the case, you are diverting attention from the real issues."Correction: Should be "because of your over attention to film fakery....you are diverting attention from the important issues in the case." I have not heard a word on the official story of the throat wound as exit wound from the bullet which hit JFK in the back. This bullet, the "magic" bullet, would have had to travel through the spinal vertebrae in order to exit the throat. This was the first shot. The second hit the curb (section of curb later removed) and nicked a bystander. It was the last bullet that hit JFK in the head--see the Warren Commission diagram--the one Ford raised to fit Specter's theory.
What are you talking about? Jim has covered that throat wound and the magic bullet many, many times in excruciating detail.The throat wound was an entry wound, this was noted by the doctors at Parkland. However, it was later enlarged to make it look like an exit wound and was noted as such in the Bethesda autopsy. It is this shot to the throat that holed the windscreen and may have been the first shot to hit JFK as he was clutching his throat long before the hits to the head. Jim has mentioned dozens of times that the cervical vertebrae make the magic bullet theory impossible.Jim has also covered the miss that hit the kerb and wounded James Tague in the knee.I really think you have not listened to Jim's shows on JFK, if you had, then you wouldn't make all these errors, all this stuff has been covered several times and in great detail.
...Fired by an Air Force officer from the sewer opening to the left front of the Lincoln.The shot passed through the windshield causing the 'firecracker' sound widely reported throughout Dealy and easily seen in the Altgens 6 photo. The bullet fragmented upon entering JFKs throat with part of it ranging downward, striking his right lung I believe and the other part ranging upward to strike the base of the skull, fracturing it and causing tissue from the cerebellum to extrude from the head wound seen at Parkland.Tague was hit on the cheek, I do believe.
Yes, it was Tague's cheek, where I got knee from I dunno, call it a brain fart :)Johnny Roselli claimed he was the shooter in the sewer, but I don't know if that is credible or not. The location of the sewer opening is shown on the left of this photo:http://jfkplayersandwitnesses.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/towner-uncropped-11-22-63.jpg
Im not sure either but Jim has him pegged as Jack Lawrence.w.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/six-jfk-shooters-three-tied-to-cia-named-oswald-not-among-them/.Ms 'I rattle on about nothing much' I believe was saying that no research has been done on the the throat wound. If I correctly interpreted her rattling Wow, just wow.This place has some mighty peculiar folk that post some mighty peculiar stuff
Yes Chris, that was what she said. I found that incredible, and as I said, she can't have actually listened to Jim's shows about JFK because that throat wound has been covered so many times in such detail.
'Lane is a gatekeeper, pure and simple, and his CIA thesis is pure, classical gatekeeping'.......GreenleighYou are the gatekeeper, Greenleigh. There was no "gatekeeping" back in the sixties. You've never read any of Lanes books, have you? Lane was a friend of Garrison. You are a Johnny come lately who didn't do his homework.
Wow, what an infantile statement. Of course there was gatekeeping back in the 60s, there has been gatekeeping, disinfo and cointelpro for as long as there has been civilisation!Have you never heard of Macchiaveli? What about Francis Walsingham? Intelligence agencies and their games are nothing new.When you say incredibly moronic things like there was no gatekeeping back in the 60s then I have to think you're incredibly ill-informed and stupendously naive.I note you have yet to make a single counterpoint to any of the evidence I have put forward about Lane's CIA connections. Instead, all you do is make stupid statements. Why do you keep ignoring the evidence about Lane?
You are pathetic, Ian. You are all over this site like a junk-yard dog. You aren't even a good gatekeeper.
I see, so when someone challenges you, instead of making a cogent argument and presenting evidence to support your argument, you react in a childish manner. obf was right, you are an intellectual snob. You come along, pretending to know it all about the JFK case and snorting derision at anyone who is younger and wasn't around in the early days of JFK research.Well, quite frankly, that sort of hogwash ain't gonna get you anywhere.
This is interesting. Of course, Lane's connections are problematic, but he seems to be very well meaning, maybe controlled in some ways unbeknownst to himself.On the other hand, Lane's work is marvellous, on many fronts.And no, Ian is no gatekeeper, Joan, though his thoughts have gates at times and he can be as infantile as his words say others are.
Yeah, I'm not perfect but who is?I just think there is far too much evidence for Lane being a CIA operator to discount, and I think Gordon Duff was correct - most of the JFK researchers are disinfo. Just some bullet points on Lane:* Zionist Jew (his father's surname was Levin)* Began his career in US Army Intelligence in the 1940s, this later became the CIA* Mis-used witness testimony in the JFK case to distort the meaning* Was condemned by the HSCA for telling outright lies about the JFK and MLK cases* Wrote a book about US attrocities in Vietnam that was full of bogus claims* Was the lawyer for Jim Jones and most likely, one of his CIA handlers* Was present at the Jonestown Massacre but miraculously survived* Became owner of Carto's AFP after the unsuccessful legal trial against the Zionist ADL* Lane's AFP in recent times has been exposed as a disinfo operation, Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper most prominent as disinfo agentsI think Lane is an operator who is used to disrupt important cases such as JFK, MLK etc. In much the same vein as Ken Feinberg who was the Jewish lawyer in charge of compensation payouts for 9-11 and half a dozen other false flags of recent years.
You tell him Joan. This cointelpro egghead with encyclopaedic knowledge is spamming on purpose this otherwise high brow blog of Professor Fetzer with magic bullets and entities nobody ever heard of and will never hear about again. As to refresh his memory the current topic is about a Hollywood project made 50 years ago by his cronies.
Joan Edwards said:MANY THINK THIS PICTURE IS BETTER THAN OLIVER STONE'S "JFK":"EXECUTIVE ACTION," 1973, BY MARK LANEJFK - executive action part1/9 - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VAOVhwLkEU&list=PL0DC91C3181554614~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I should have explained. This was in response to Jim's comment that he thought "Dr. Strangelove" was second best after Stone's "JFK." I just wanted to remind him that many people still think Freed and Lane's "Executive Action" was better than JFK. It's certainly on a par with "JFK" in telling a plausible story of what might have happened. I thought they did a good job showing how LHO was set up with doubles and phony evidence.You don't see this film very often. They used to show it every now and then on TV, but I haven't seen it for a long time.
Stone's movie is flawed due to the misdirection of Robert Groden on the authenticity of the Zapruder movie and the Altgens 6 photo showing Oswald in the doorway. However, it served it's purpose of re-awakening interest in the case. The movie was produced by Arnon Milchan, Mossad agent, Israel's number one weapons procurer and 'best friend' of Shimon Peres. With Milchan in charge, you can bet that there was never any chance of anything really damaging to the culprits making it into the movie.Executive Action has to be viewed in the same way, due to Lane's involvement. What is in the film being less important than what isn't, as they would never include anything really damaging.
It's all damaging: there were plenty of culprits and the JFK Stone and Executive Action Lane films both get the types of thinking across of perpetrators and how to face the events from the conspiracy case position, rather than how non-conspiracy thinkers would. However, there are flaws and missing pieces in both.
I agree Clare, neither is a flawless work but both serve a purpose - to provoke thought. I bet Stone would love to make a new film that corrected the flaws of the earlier one, I actually have faith that Stone is on the level and does want to get the truth (as far as that is discernible) out to a wider audience.
Ian GreenhalghApril 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM wrote;There's no reason to trust the Zionist Jew Mark Lane either as he's also a villain and CIA operative. Lane worked for US Army intelligence in Germany in 1945-47, which became the CIA. He was the lawyer for Jim Jones and was present in Jonestown but mysteriously survived the massacre. He ran the Liberty Lobby and AFP which functioned as controlled opposition for the CIA; he lied to the HSCA and was chastised by them for it; he produced bogus atrocity accounts about the Vietnam War. Lane is a CIA operative performing the role of controlled opposition and who's mission is to discredit the truth movement by formulating bogus conspiracy theories and concocting false evidence.There are a collection of links to documents showing Lane's many transgressions against truth here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm
And what is your point in reposting this?
Is Mark Lane a Dangerous Man Who Can't be Trusted?Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer's Brief, by Mark Lane, National Guardian, 12/19/63 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.htmlLane’s defense brief for Oswald In an analysis of the civil liberties aspects of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the American Civil Liberties Union said the “public interest” would be served if the commission named by President Johnson were to make “a thorough examination of the treatment accorded Oswald, including his right to counsel, the nature of the interrogation, his physical security while under arrest, and the effect of pretrial publicity on Oswald’s right to a fair trial.” In the public interest the GUARDIAN has devoted one-half of its issue this week to a lawyer’s brief in the Oswald case which has been sent by the author to Justice Earl Warren as head of the fact-finding commission inquiring into the circumstances of the assassination of President Kennedy. The author is Mark Lane, a well known New York defense attorney, who has represented almost all the civil rights demonstrators arrested in New York. He has also served as defense counsel in a number of murder cases involving young persons. In 1959, he helped organize the Reform Democrats in New York, an insurgent movement within the Democratic Party, was the first candidate of the movement to be nominated to the New York State Legislature and was elected in 1960. In his letter to Justice Warren accompanying the brief, Lane urged that defense counsel be named for Oswald so that all aspects of the case might be vigorously pursued, particularly since Oswald was denied a trial during his lifetime. It is an ironic note, as the ACLU statement said, that “if Oswald had lived to stand trial and were convicted, the courts would very likely have reversed the conviction because of the prejudicial pretrial publicity.” The GUARDIAN’S publication of Lane’s brief presumes only one thing: a man’s innocence, under U.S. law, unless or until proved guilty. It is the right of any accused, whether his name is Oswald, Ruby, or Byron de la Beckwith, the man charged with the murder of Medgar Evers in Mississippi. A presumption of innocence is the rock upon which American jurisprudence rests. Surely it ought to apply in the “crime of the century” as in the meanest back-alley felony. We ask all our readers to study this document, show it to as many persons as you can (extra copies are available on request) and send us your comment. Any information or analysis based on fact that can assist the Warren Commission is in the public interest—an interest which demands that everything possible be done to establish the facts in this case. —THE GUARDIAN
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htmProuty and the Far RightL. Fletcher Prouty -- All Purpose Kennedy Assassination Expert? Or Crackpot"An essay, written from a leftist perspective by __Chip Berlet__ deals with the ties between Prouty (and, incidentally, Mark Lane) and the extreme right-wing paranoid Liberty Lobby. Nothing here shows Prouty to have been a Nazi or an anti-Semite, but shouldn't he have shown better judgment in picking his associates?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````Ian Greenleigh, why are you posting this 'Oswald as lone assassin' web page again?You are knocking Fletcher Prouty in the piece above, and showing your ignorance for believing anything written by Chip Berlet. Are you kidding us again, Ian?This site is full of insults not only to Mark Lane but to all the major researchers and sources used by Jim Fetcher.i've just begun checking, and guess what. I'm really bored with your incompetence and lack of background in the JFK case. I suggest you take all of these paragraphs in this piece and debunk them.
Cut the bullshit, you're making an absolutely ludicrous attempt at forming an argument. I posted a link to that website once, so don't lie and say I am posting it again. Besides, the page that you just posted the link to is NOT the same page that I linked to on that website.Two outright lies.Secondly, I explained the first time, and you have completely ignored the explanation - I linked to that website because it contained a lost of links to material about Mark Lane, none of which was written by mcAdams.I suggest you stop lying right now, because no-one is going to pay any attention to a liar and you seem to crave attention.Oh, and you got my name and Jim Fetzer's name wrong.Oh, and what shocking hypocrisy to accuse me of incompetence when you didn't even know that the throat wound to JFK had been discussed in exhaustive detail on Jim's show and didn't know that the magic bullet theory and JFK's back wound had similarly, been discussed in great detail.I think you should apologise for telling blatant, bald-faced lies.
Ian Greeleigh said:"Lane is a CIA operative performing the role of controlled opposition and who's mission is to discredit the truth movement by formulating bogus conspiracy theories and concocting false evidence.""There are a collection of links to documents showing Lane's many transgressions against truth here:"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~That's pretty funny, Ian. What "truth movement" and what "truth"? Lane was the first to write about and offer to defend Oswald whose civil rights were being abused. "Bogus conspiracy theories"? Really? He was asked by LHO's mother to represent Lee at the Warren Commission but was denied by the Commission. Lane's first book was "Rush to Judgement" and it was about government and media malfeasance in the case. Lane also interviewed the witnesses who gave testimony to the Warren Commission.That little twerp, Chip Berlet, is a gatekeeper for the Left alt. media BIGTIME. Hard as it is to believe you are not up on the facts in the JFK case, Ian, you should know who the real gatekeepers are.
A couple of days ago you said there wasn't any gatekeeping back in the 60s.I think you're senile, or just not too smart.
Greenhaigh, stop trying to distance yourself from McAdams. This is his home site. He is a debunker of "conspiracists" in the JFK murder just like you.And I'd like to know how a CIA asset. such as you claim Lane to be, would be accusing the CIA of being the pivotal force in the JFK murder.JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Page http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htmThe KennedyAssassinationBy John McAdams© 1995-2013"This web site is dedicated to debunking the mass of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the murder of JFK. If you are believer in Oswald as a lone gunman, you are likely to enjoy this web site, since most of that misinformation and disinformation has come from conspiracists. But if you are a sophisticated conspiracist, you likely understand that the mass of silly nonsense in conspiracy books and documentaries does no service to the cause of truth in the assassination, and simply buries the "case for conspiracy" under layers of bunk."
This is an absolutely pathetic attempt at making an argument. I have never quoted McAdams or referenced any of his work.I have already explained Lane's gatekeeping re the CIA and JFK, but again, you're ignoring my explanations.
Something new on the subject is at www.banditobooks.com...has to do with why people cannot accept the truth about what happened then and is happening now...
So, if McAdams didn't write this, who did? Here he is again rapping Jim Garrison.New Orleans/Garrison JFK Assassination Investigation http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htmNEW ORLEANS, AND THE GARRISON INVESTIGATION It was a three-ring circus. A flamboyant district attorney, with visions of conspiracy, proposing a series of theories, most of them bizarre. What he first called a "homosexual thrill killing" evolved, under the influence of the conspiracy buffs who flocked to New Orleans, into a massive CIA and federal government plot. When push came to shove in the courtroom, a jury took less than an hour to acquit Clay Shaw, the man Garrison put on trial.
Again, spurious, unrelated BS. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lane or any of the things I wrote. Your constant harping on about McAdams just shows that you're unable to defend Lane so instead you're going of on an unrelated tangent.Why don't you at least try to counter some of the points I've made about Lane? No unrelated BS about McAdams or Garrison, why not address why Lane was present at the Jonestown Massacre but miraculously survived? Or how about the condemnation he received from the HSCA for telling blatant lies?
An article about Mark Lane and his problem with the truth:http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.htmlan excerpt:" Judging from website reports, Lane’s supporters are unaware of his previous shenanigans which stretch back to December 1963; yes, Lane was present at the creation. In 1966, Lane’s first book, Rush to Judgment, was persuasive with the mainstream media who were taken in by Lane’s lawyerly tricks and silver tongue as he debated supporters of the Warren Commission around the world. As Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler observed, Lane’s antics during these debates reminded him of “an old legend about frogs jumping from the mouth of a perfidious man every time he speaks . . . . If (Lane) talks for five minutes, it takes an hour to straighten out the record.” Even the counter-culture Rolling Stone magazine characterized Lane as a “huckster” and “hearse chaser.” Bugliosi describes Lane as having “infidelity to the truth” . . . a person who commits “outright fabrications” . . . “a fraud in his preachments about the known assassin” . . . and that he had “deliberately distorted the evidence” and repeatedly omitted “evidence damaging to his side.” In Rush to Judgment, Lane abused the Warren Commission testimony of Jack Ruby, Oswald’s killer, and others like Charles Brehm, an alleged “grassy knoll” witness, who said Lane took his statements out of context and added a different meaning to them. Lane also omitted the statements of key witnesses like Johnny C Brewer, who observed a nervous Oswald avoid police patrols after the shooting of Officer Tippit. But Lane has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts. In the early 1970s he used unreliable testimony to accuse American soldiers of multiple atrocities during the Vietnam War, according to New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan, a prominent critic of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Sheehan investigated the accounts in Lane’s book, Conversations with Americans Testimony from 32 Vietnam Veterans, and found most of them to be bogus. In the late 1970s, as a lawyer for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassin, James Earl Ray, Lane appeared before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), a congressional probe into the Lane circumstances surrounding the separate assassinations of the civil rights leader and President Kennedy. HSCA said of Lane in its report, “Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane . . . . As has been noted, 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.”"
Greenhaigh, you just repeated the McAdams blog. You are taking up space unnecessarily. Here's the new one you posted by the famous Mel Ayton.(?) You see how easy it is. There is no CIA tie in to the JFK assassination. It says so right here. And all these respected writers like Bugliosi confirm that. And please do your homework and tell us who Chip Berlet is. He's been around a long time. You should like him.Washington Decoded: Mark Lane: The Original Shyster http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/laneBy Mel AytonOutside of the wild and speculative books that attempt to tie in the CIA to the JFK assassination, there have been a number of __respected__ authors (including Bayard Stockton, Vincent Bugliosi, Gus Russo, Evan Thomas, Tim Weiner, Jefferson Morley, and Peter Grose) who have researched the allegation. Most discovered curious, but essentially ephemeral, Oswald connections to anti-Castro Cubans and their CIA handlers. Additionally, alleged CIA/Oswald connections were investigated by the Warren Commission, Rockefeller Commission, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities (Church Committee), as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). All these investigatory bodies found no credible evidence to support CIA involvement or culpability in the assassination. Vincent Bugliosi, in his 1,600 page opus about the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History, concluded that conspiracy theorists have been unable to come up with “any evidence connecting the CIA to Oswald
"In the late 1970s, as a lawyer for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassin, James Earl Ray........"(Hold it a second, Ian. Shouldn't that be "alleged assassin"? Isn't that a "begging the question" fallacy, Ian? If you are going to police this board for Dr. Fetzer, you should observe rules of logic.)"Lane appeared before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), a congressional probe into the Lane circumstances surrounding the separate assassinations of the civil rights leader and President Kennedy. HSCA said of Lane in its report, “Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane"
Well, it's clearly a waste of time trying to debate anything with you because all you do is spout spurious BS rather than make any cogent points.You have failed to address any of the points I have made, not a single one. all you have done is attack people who I didn't even refer to or use as sources.Overall, pretty pathetic and moronic.
A.C. Weisbecker wrote: Something new on the subject is atwww.banditobooks.com...has to do with why people cannot accept the truth about what happened then and is happening now...__________________________________Isn't this amazing! Last night, I went over to the fakeologist website, and listened to three hours of you and the host talking about fakery, JFK, the moon hoax, etc. Now, I did believe the moon thing was a hoax, and have tried to watch the rationale for that but always was too bored by the explanations. Now, here you are with this tiny clip and also you tube segments that explain the hoax in a nutshell. I did know about Van Allen radiation belt, the no stars visible and I thought there was something about having to heat and cool the space suits for those extreme temperatures. But anyway, synchronicity at work! Who says there is no order to the universe? When the student is ready, the teacher appears.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`As to Ian Greehaigh here, I don't know what his problem is--too much ego. I grew up on Mark Lane's books and admire him tremendously. Ian has a problem with that because of some garbage he's read claiming Lane is CIA. As far as I am concerned, Lane could be an axe murderer and I would still recommend his books. Also, he wrote the screenplay for "Executive Action" back in 1973, the best film IMO on the JFK. Maybe you know this film co-wrote with Donald Freed who also wrote "Killing Time" on the OJ case. Great book which lays out the timeline.
Welcome to Allan Weisbecker's Bandito Books http://www.banditobooks.com/nav-essays.phpThink mankind went to the moon? Think again! Check out my interview on Revolution Radio:PART ONE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jewOxhe6whIPART TWO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-UOaSp06nEPART THREE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lD0M2XWXgw
Gary,Instead of your show focusing on the shortcomings of your "fellow researchers", how about a show on the new evidence that's come to light in the wake of the AARB work? It would certainly be more entertaining than the current format, which is, to be generous, sophomoric.
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth: