Mark Lane to JFK skeptics: chill out

Mark Lane, now 86 years old, was the author of “Rush to Judgment,” a 1965 best-seller that crystallized growing public disbelief of the Warren Commission’s findings about the death of JFK.

He sent Deb Conway the following email message and ask it to be forwarded to the community of people interested in JFK’s assassination:

“They killed our president and have sought, all these years, to continue the cover-up the facts that demonstrate that the CIA with assistance from the Secret Service was involved.

“I started the opposition to the government’s false story almost half a century ago and I am not pleased to see egos and personalities interfere with our joint perspective. How about an end to the name calling by those who share the same evaluation and hopes. How about those of us on the same side starting to work together. It is still our country and there is still work to be done. Just a modest suggestion or two.”Best to all.

Mark”

94 thoughts on “Mark Lane to JFK skeptics: chill out”

  1. Those who disbelieve the Warren Commission ought not sabotage the truth with senseless bickering. Thank you, Mark, for your above advice and passion for truth that inspired you to investigate, our president’s murder with more integrity than the entire US government. Mark Lane, I salute you!

    1. With all due respect ,I believe now is not the time to chill out. I dont believe chilling out will accomplish anything. I agree all of us on the same side need to work together, but I believe now is the time to crank up the heat on President Biden to release all the J.F.K. files in full with no redactions and give the power and honesty back to the people so we can put confidence back in our government..If Biden dont release the files, he is no better than TRUMP and somebody needs to take him and Trump both behind the WOODSHED. G.W.Hicks

  2. I distributed the film Rush To Judgement in France and brought Mark & Emile de Antonio to Paris for the opening. The subject has been in my sights ever since. I’m surprised that none of you has mentioned:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

    It mentions Mark and adds a historical context, names names, and gets very specific about who, how, and why. It is a exceptionally well done, complex film.

    I was also surprised to see on this blog a number of rather silly, high school slurs about Mark that have nothing to do with the assassination subject. They seem to be on about the intellectual level of the CIA.

    And Hello, Mark.

  3. I WAS IN THE NAVY AT THE TIME ,JUST RETURNING FROM WEEKLY OPS ON A SUBMARINE. I FOLLOWED THIS STORY FOR YEARS. SO MANY DISCREPENCIES IN THE POSTS. I WOULD LIKE TO RENEW MY INTEREST IN JFK. HE WAS A GOOD MAN.NOT LIKE OBAMMA. SUGGESTIONS?? now that i am retired in bangkok

    1. Hi Larry,

      Just visit this site regularly and follow the comments. You’ll learn from some of the most knowledgable people on the subject.

      I made an exception for you this one time but only this one time. JFK Facts does not consider comments that are WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS.

  4. vincent j lavery

    Having been a student of the Kennedy assassination for 50 years I would ask for assistance from any reader of this message so that redress can be sought. The Irish Times – Ireland’s “Newspaper of Record”, wrote an article two years ago this week on the assassination of President John f. Kennedy. The article had twelve errors or highly suspect statements in it. I have sought redress by correction for two years. Having sough assistance from approximately 75 members of the Irish mass media, 25 elected national politicians, six academics, five civil rights organisations, five lawyers to no avail, I truly have reached the end of the road in seeking corrections on behalf of the Irish public. If any reader of this message could publicly assist me I would welcome the contact. Thank you. Vincent J. Lavery, Irish Free Speech Movement, Dublin Ireland Email: vjlavery@yahoo.com

      1. I don’t know Vincent Lavery personally, and I’ve not heard back from him but I came across this and hope Jeff will see fit to post it:

        ‘Vincent Lavery [first generation Irish immigrant] is a retired secondary school teacher who taught U.S. Government and Economics in the United States. He is an active member of the United States of America Democratic Party. He worked with Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s campaign for president in 1968. He was a County Chairman in Central California and a delegate to the 1968 Convention in Chicago. He worked for Senator Kennedy for sixteen months. He promoted concerts in California during the 1960s and he turned down the opportunity to manage The Doors and Jim Morrison. He has coedited four books on soccer and football and coached soccer at several levels ranging from under 16 to adult.’

        “So five days before his death, I introduced him [Robert Kennedy] as he came through the Central Valley and I said…it was about five thousand people, I stood there and I looked out and I saw black faces, brown faces and Asians, young seventeen, eighteen-year-olds who didn’t know how the process worked but they felt something, they felt this was some great moment. The other side of the coin was there were those who felt it was damnable. Let’s not fool ourselves. There was either hate or love. I introduced him I said, “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome, welcome, this is the most wonderfulest of moment in my life.” The English wasn’t very good but the sentiment was great. Ethel Kennedy looked over and she whispered and said, “You are Irish aren’t you?” I continued, I said, “The next President of the United States, Senator Robert F Kennedy.” — Vincent Lavery

        http://dublincitypubliclibraries.com/story/living-history-vincent-lavery-transcript

  5. The three people who killed JFK for the CIA were sharp shooters Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers and assistant Chauncy Holt. There is no reason to invoke other names like “Bud” whose “fingerprints” were found on the boxcar. Do you believe for ONE SECOND that any policeman bothered to fingerprint a large box car when they didn’t even arrest and photograph the three men above who were allowed to exit out the back door of the police station? The police were told by the CIA before the shooting that the must not get involved when it happens. I believe these “police men” were CIA scum dressed as police.

    Be very careful when youinvestigate this. The CIA disguises themselves as muckracking independent campaigners that are going to get to the bottom of things. They create websites and youtube channels that present some true facts and follow some correct line of speculation only to divert you off on a tangent to protect the big truth. They hide themselves among few youtubers and websites who are telling the truth (in the case of JFK the truth being that it is Holt, Harrison and Rogers).

    There is one website that claims that Rogers is actually Harrelson. If they don’t confuse you enough with that they go even further and say that the other two (in reality harrelson and holt) were Sturgess and Caswell! Definitely a State/CIA run website.

    So beware, the CIA is very good at presenting eclectic theories to divert you away from the real truth, the big truth.

    They even create youtube channels that divert you off the track about 9/11. THey’ll admit that 9/11 was a conspiracy but they will present every half baked theory under the sun to protect the big lie: that it was the US Air Force and drone jets that hit the buildings as a pretext for the plan demolition; a Tomahawk missile hit the Pentagon, and Flight 93 was a fantasy (it never happened). Even the Mayor of Shankesville said “there is not plane”

    1. Not only is there no evidence that Charles Harrelson, Charles Rogers, and Chauncy Holt were the shooters, but they were not assassins or snipers.
      A CIA document was discovered in the late 70’s stated that a French assassin was in Dallas 11/22/63. A US soldier overseas intercepted a message from CIA agent William Harvey instructing another to recruit a French assassin for the purpose of assassinating President Kennedy, in Dallas.
      E. Howard Hunt said that William Harvey was involved in the selection of a French assassin for the Kennedy assignment.

  6. Over the last 17 years since my father pasted away I have researched enough info along with his notes to put the dots together, I truly believe I have a very good idea of the players but have not yet found the ” smoking gun ” details to follow shortly at warjac.com you can also go to {you tube} search ” hit man for the mob ” also pics are on Facebook at Dale Harold Cline I believe his code name James John Warjac will be in the Warren Files that have not been released, Thru FOIA, we have FBI files Naval intelligence, and a CIA letter that states under Executive order 13526 the CIA can neither confirm nor deny that Dale Harold Cline aka James John Warjac has a secured file, they do deny any open file. I also have the original document from Gov. John Connally that pardons my father for all crimes committed prior to 1968

    1. Yes James John warjac was given a fifty eight year sentence and only did 4 of them so what did he do for connally and friends to deserve this

  7. Mark Lane has always been most effective when talking to audiences who lack the skills to fact check his assertions, or who are eager to believe him, and don’t want to fact check his assertions.

    But before the HSCA, when he was defending James Earl Ray, he faced a committee that did have both the will and the resources to fact check what he said.

    They chastised him for the falsehoods he told.

    Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray at the committee’s public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane’s assertions. . . . In many instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than inference and innuendo. Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned. (House Select Committee Report, Page 424, footnote 16)

    1. Using the HSCA to discredit Mark Lane? An investigation that has not stood the test of time. Robert Blakley himself has expressed regret over how the investigation was handled. James Earl Ray never stood trial because of a guilty plea he tried to take back (but the judge died five days later). So again, no trial so no evidence needed. But there was a civil trial in 1999 – and after hearing evidence, it took 12 jurors less than an hour to decide that there was overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy in the murder of Martin Luther King and that Ray was set up to take the fall. So maybe Mark Lane was on to something after all.

      1. Yes. Lane was vindicated in 99 regarding Ray and the MLK Assassination in an actual court in the United States. which further supports his assertions regarding the JFK assassination. Too bad Dulles and the WC would not let him present his case on behalf of Marguerite Oswald for her son.

    2. McAdams,

      Anyone who has read ORDERS TO KILL by William F. Pepper knows that you are touting absolute nonsense here.
      This is the most important book in all of the literature of the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination.
      The detail within will curl your toes and set the hairs on the nape of your neck on end.

      Anyone who has not read this book are essentially ignorant of the whole MLK assassination case.
      \\][//

      1. My bad. The preamble to this thread by Mark Lane.

        Yes, very good advice. Let’s all work in concert, respecting difference of opinion, but also having the courage to stand corrected when appropriate. We can also learn from each other.

        This will advance the cause to unravel more of the truth with time.

  8. Why can’t someone or some group put pressure on Obama to release ALL documents relating to the JFK murder now. There is no National Security risk now (probably never was one). If a republican wins in
    2016 you can forget those documents ever being released.

    1. why would you say if a Republican wins you can forget about those documents ever being released? do you remember who was in the White House and had the records sealed?

    2. That may be true, but Obama could pull a slick maneuver by doing an Executive Order on the morning of his last day as President, to release the files, if the next President will be a Republican.

  9. Check out these items.
    1. how did Jack Ruby know the exact time Oswald was comiong to the basement, as it was almost 1 hour later than the announced time.
    2. why did a police car stop in front of Oswalds rooming house ,honk the horn 2 times and drive off?
    3.why did 80% of the police officers that were present head for the grassy knoll?
    4. why were there 5-6 known hitmen in Dealy Plaza at the scene of the assassination?
    5. ask youself “what did Oswald have to gain by killing Kennedy?”

    1. Except for point 4, they are all suspicious.

      Ruby may also have been trying to avoid the confrontation with Oswald by leaving late but got there just in the nick of time.

      (All we know in point 4 is that James Braden was in the Dal-Tex building, that Ruby was in DP, that perhaps one of the three tramps is Charles Harrelson. I’m not aware of actual photos or arrests of persons who might be assassins, but Ruby wasn’t there to shoot at JFK.)

      1. if he were trying to avoid a confortation with Oswald he would have waited till he saw the caravan leave, there are reports saying a police car sent a signal by honking their horn, just then Ruby arrived just in time to kill Oswald, seems strange all these things happening just by chance BS

        1. Hi Jerry.

          It would’ve been too obvious for Ruby to wait around outside for the caravan to leave. If Ruby didn’t try to snuff out Oswald, he probably would meet the same fate.

          But yes, I’ve heard that horn and the theory that it was to signal Oswald’s trek to the awaiting paddy wagon or police car.

          Interestingly enough, the late Peter Worthington from Toronto, was to cover the transport of Oswald at 4 pm but went to investigate the ‘lay of the land’ in the morning after his flight into town. Unexpectedly, he learned that Oswald was leaving earlier. (A Toronto Star reporter was reprimanded for sleeping in and missing the story).

          Peter Worthington can be seen in the far left (crew cut in suit) reacting to the shot that killed Oswald.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/lee-harvey-oswald_b_1105191.html

          1. Gerry, I have been interested in the assassination since it happed I was in my 2nd year at Wichita State, after 4 years in the Air Force, when the killing of Kennedy took place and watched the murder of Oswald on TV, I made a remark to my wife, when that happened, that it was a planned hit to shut him up, I don’t believe he did it but I think he realized he had been set up

        2. I heard the honking of the horn while listening to Ike Pappas’ coverage of the transport of Oswald. The horn sounds just as Pappas’ says “There is the prisoner. Do you have anything to say in your defense?”, then comes the sound of Ruby killing LHO.

  10. So much has been written about LHO’s three shots (BS I know), but has there been any discussion as to whether he had more than three bullets in the rifle. In other words, could he have been able to shoot a 4th, 5th, 6th etc. bullet if he had missed on the first three? Did LHO have only a rifle with three bullets on him while on the 6th floor?

    1. did you ever see the picture of the 3 empty shells that were found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? they were laid out nice and neat about 1 inch apart and in a neat little row , we all know this was not staged. 3 shots fired and ejected from a rifle would be all over the place, 2 rifles also found according to the detectives who IDed them. we know Oswald did it cause the Warren commission said he did BS

      1. did you ever see the picture of the 3 empty shells that were found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? they were laid out nice and neat about 1 inch apart and in a neat little row

        There is no such photo. The “picture” you have in mind is a drawing, based on the testimony of Roger Craig.

        But Craig was vastly unreliable:

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm

        1. you are right about that drawing, I saw the photo of the 3 casings taken at the window on the 6th floor or should I say 2 spent casings and 1 live round, interesting read. type in 3 casings at TSBD 6th floor window.

        2. I looked up info about you not to many people have a favorable opinion of your thoughts on this, and is Roger Craig so unrealiable that they fired him from the sherrifs office he got shot at, run off the road, his car exploded, and he supposedly committed sucide, because he would not change his testimony that the rifle he saw was a German 7.65 Mauser

          1. he got shot at, run off the road, his car exploded, and he supposedly committed sucide, because he would not change his testimony that the rifle he saw was a German 7.65 Mauser

            For all the stories about “shot at,” etc. we have only Roger Craig’s word, and not any corroboration.

            As for the “Mauser” story: that was in a 1974 interview with Lincoln Carle.

            In 1968, he was telling a different story:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg

            There is no doubt that the rifle recovered was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

            Here is one frame from the Alyea film:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg

            Here is the HSCA analysis:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=78105

            I looked up info about you not to many people have a favorable opinion of your thoughts on this

            Oh, you mean buffs who post on the Internet don’t like me?

            I’m proud of that.

          2. Haroldf Schwartz

            John McAdams is a bully and a clown. If you wish to present evidence, try a clip of a newspaper that has the papers name and the name of the person who wrote the article.

            Since Roger Craig’s statement that he was shot at would be in line with the intimidation that MANY witnesses testified to, a pattern of initimidation would tend to support Craig’s claims.

            And a signed affadavit supports Craig’s claims of a Mauser being found on the 6th floor.

            McAdams should stick to his JFK class where he can bully and belittle his students into believing what he says.

    2. Louie Fierro April 26, 2014 at 10:10 pm

      This is covered in the subject, “Fact check: Was a Mauser found in the Texas School Book Depository?”, April 9, 2013

      You see a picture of three fired cases. It clearly shows the infamous dented case lip and the fellow makes the claim that it could not have been fired. I don’t think you have to be a ballistics expert to understand that it was dented AFTER it was fired.

      I’ll leave the debate between 2 empty cases and 3 empty cases to others. Plus you see the one unfired round. I know of no reason that Oswald couldn’t have fired the unfired round found on the 6th floor.

      The magazine of the rifle itself holds 6 rounds which are loaded with an en-bloc clip. Evidently Oswald didn’t have the rifle fully loaded.

  11. ASK THE QUESTION, WHY WERE THERE 5-6 KNOWN (HITMEN) ASSASINS IN DEALY PLAZA DURING AN ASSISINATION, WHAT WOULD BE THE ODDS ON THAT?

    1. It would be great if you have a citation for this other than what James Files said or those involving suspicious people present like James Braden or a photo of one of the tramps resembling Charles Harrelson.

      1. the 3 tramps Chauncey Holt-Charles Harrelson-Charles Rogers and Charles Nicoletti-John Rosselli plus Bud Wallace whos fingerprint is reported to have been found on one of the boxes by the 6th floor window have pictures of most

          1. Understood, but who says that Charles Nicoletti and John Roselli were there too. James Files? Any other corroboration?

            You could be right about Mac Wallace but Joan Mellen at last November’s Lancer conference said that her independent analysis of the fingerprint evidence did not confirm it was Mac Wallace (my reading of the original analysis says that there were plenty of matching points to say it was Wallace).

            Holt claims to have been a CIA operative who handed out phony SS credentials as well as a bookkeeper for Meyer Lansky, but he is no assassin.

            I’ve never heard of Charles Rogers. Who is he?

  12. Well, this may come as a shock to some but Ive been looking at this just a short time from a serious investigative stand point. In fact I didn’t really know who Mark Lane was until recently. And there is so much credible evidence out there, that proves to me there was a cover up, and the mob CIA, and certain people in the Dallas police force was involved. Like Roscoe White and JD Tippit. But it was George de Mohrenschildt and Jack Rubys connection to Sam Giancana, that proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t pull the trigger. Also the book that made me set up and take notice was Killing Kennedy, by Bill Oreilly. He was a reporter in Dallas at the time, and he went to interview deMohrenschildt, the day he was killed in Florida. When I saw how ridiculous Oreillys book looked and sounded, I knew He knew much more than he was willing to report, so he went along with the Oswald, actually now a fantasy, being the lone assassin. But Im knew to this except, just looking at it from a logical investigative standpoint.

  13. If people who don’t believe in a conspiracy of JFK, why are you reading conspiracy websites? If you don’t believe it move on….it’s like atheists trying to disprove there is a God…if you don’t believe in something…you have no need to disprove it, it never even enters your mind.

    1. There are three reasons in my mind (maybe more I suppose) why lone nutters (I don’t use this term pejoratively) come here:

      a) They view CTers as left wingers or anarchists, and oppose for political reasons;

      b) They have invested in the lone assassin view to such an extent, it would impair their credibility or the perception of impairment. (This could include academics or authors).

      c) They care to comment because they believe in the WC version with religious fervor, never questioning authority or doing the necessary reading to realize that the official account doesn’t quite add up.

      1. Sorry, there’s a bona fide fourth reason:

        d) Critics of this site could include some CIA disinformation assets*.

        *Whether such criticism is merely damage control for bygones beyond the current agency’s control, or to hide any complicity in an ongoing effort or policy.

        1. The only disinformation that I have seen has been the promulgation of irrational theories such as Zapruder alteration ( while continually ignoring the fact that the technology necessary to alter it in the manner described did not exist until years later); claims of official X-ray and photo fakery debunked by real experts; support for a bogus investigation conducted by a district attorney who claimed that one of the most powerful Mafia dons in the country was just a businessman despite his well-known connections with Hoffa and his well-known hatred for JFK.
          No WC apologist could do as much damage to the research community as has been done by “conspiracy supporters” who continuously ignore the physical and historic evidence of the assassination being nothing but a simple Mafia hit.
          And the Mafia got away with it.

          1. and you are a criminalist with a degree phycology and criminology. is this why we should believe you and not anyone else?

          2. Hi BradR

            Just querying your point that the theory that the Zapruder film has been altered is irrational. Have you seen John Costella’s presentation on youtube – “A Simple Introduction”? If so can you explain why the Connollys and SS Agents all jerk forward at the same time while the Kennedys don’t move. I don’t see how that can be explained any other way except through film alteration. Thanks for your views.

  14. Obviously, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin responsible for the murder of JFK. It is amazing how people love to believe in conspiracies. Look at the track record of the most famous conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane. What a totally disreputable character!!!

    1. Obviously, Oswald was NOT the assassin. How dare you say he obviously WAS….where on earth do you have proof of that when there is so much proof he was NOT? The first bit of strong evidence is that his co-worker (a woman) saw him in the break room just a couple of minutes prior to the motorcade turning in front of the building…and he was there 90 seconds after the shots were fired, casually drinking a coke. Since the motorcade was running 5-8 minutes LATE and he was not upstairs when it was SUPPOSED to arrive at the building (if on time), he would have missed his “window of opportunity” if he was the actual shooter…in other words, he would have ALREADY been upstairs. He wasn’t up there because he was not supposed to be the shooter at that shooting location.

      It’s sooooo obvious that he was an Intel grunt agent on duty in an undercover assignment, set up as the patsy, when he thought men would be busted upstairs. His role (undercover with that “cell” of men), was to help get the “perch” set up for the shooter to arrive and do the dirty deed. He had been reporting all this stuff to Hosty in Dallas (and others in NOLA when he was there) all along.

      There were other shooters too and TONS of evidence of conspiracy and coverup, but what’s important for you so see here is that this ONE piece of evidence is proof Oswald was not upstairs when the shooting was SUPPOSED to take place, so he just wasn’t up there when JFK was shot, plain and simple.

      1. The problem people are running into that know there was a very obvious conspiracy is people who aren’t very well educated want them in the same category as a big foot investigator. There are three very obvious keys to the whole thing, that a person who cant investigate to well should look at, and stay with. Why did Ruby kill Oswald? Why was J.D. Tippit killed like a mob hit? And if Oswald was just a fame seeking little nut? Why did someone like George d Mohrenschildt have so much interest in him? Look hard into those questions, because there will be a quiz.

    2. Ray…you have obviously NOT looked at all the work Mark Lane did in his interviews and research..if you did, you know Oswald didn’t do it and certain members of the CIA, SS and FBI were involved. Do your homework before you speak again, please. Why do you think Lane (and Garrison) were harassed and THREATENED with attempts made to discredit them by the “authorities” within those departments? This alone is VERY STRONG EVIDENCE of conspiracy and coverup. When you’ve told the public a huge lie to cover up your crime, you obviously don’t want anyone digging around. Ask Roger Craig, Lane, Garrison, Stone and others…. I get verbally attacked also, just for telling the truth of evidence I present…there is a TON of it…the “lone nut” THEORY is total bullshit to protect those who did it, don’t you see it? It’s obvious if you truthfully look at the ton of evidence.

      Restoring the limo? Oh please!!

      Creating a “Presidential Commission” so that a REAL investigation would never take place and you’d have it all done by lawyers (paid by the primary culprit who wanted JFK dead) working in a nearby office under your thumb, orchestrated by Dulles (who wanted JFK dead), with Ford as Hoover’s mole, when Hoover (who wanted JFK dead) was in charge of the coverup story? Oh please!!

    3. It’s not for the love to believe in conspiracy theories; it’s for the love to believe in the truth when the evidence calls into question, the version put forth by the Warren Commission.

      Lincoln was murdered as a result of a conspiracy – which is a fact. (Conspiracies do exist in the real world).

      Mark Lane is a reputable trial attorney & best-selling author who’s critique of the Warren Commission is a hallmark of American free speech and the right to question authority. He successfully defended the Liberty Lobby from the CIA’s E. Howard Hunt in a defamation lawsuit.

      1. Gerry Simone July 2, 2014 at 3:12 pm

        After reading specific lies by Lane in his book, “Conversations With Americans” I tossed him into the trash can file for liars, propagandist and self promoters. He is a shyster.

        Quote On: “Stolen Valor”, B. G. Burkett, p 131
        Lane’s book was blasted by writer and war correspondent Neil Sheehan in the New York Times Book Review as a hack job. Sheehan repeatedly showed that many of Lane’s so-called “eye witnesses” to war crimes had never served in Vietnam or had not served in the capacity they claimed.

        When asked by Sheehan about the many lies and misrepresentations in his book, Lane admitted he did not check military records. “It’s not relevant: Lane said.
        Quote Off.

        Neil Sheehan, Review, “Conversations with Americans”,” The New York Times Book Review, December 27, 1970, p5

        1. Maybe his sources lied. I’m not aware of “Conversations with Americans”, but it doesn’t negate the work he has done to investigate the truth or real murderers of JFK.

          1. Gerry Simone July 9, 2014 at 11:43 am

            It was a junky book Lane wrote when he was on his anti-war kick. He was called on it. The man is a shyster. Believe him at your own risk.

          2. Gerry Simone July 9, 2014 at 11:43 am

            In his Vietnam book it wasn’t a matter of disputing that his “witnesses” didn’t say what Lane reported in the book. I have no doubt they did. The problem was that they were lying. Had Lane cared for the truth he could easily found out that many of his “witnesses” had never been to Vietnam or in a combat situation. But Lane wasn’t interested in the truth so he spread these “war stories” for the gospel truth; that was his goal. He admitted to Neil Sheehan that he had not tried to verify the honesty of his interviewees.

            It has been my experience that if a man will BS you around one time he will do it again. So I haven’t read any of Lane’s stuff since. I can’t speak of his JFK work.

    4. if you are willing to discount Mark Lanes book “Rush to Judgement” you have to not pay any attention to Harold Weisburgs books “Whitewash” I believe there were 3 books maybe 4 if you have not read them it might be a good idea to do so. you may learn something

    1. Has anyone asked how many dollars Lane got from the People’s Temple while 900 people were living in a concentration camp run by a madman?

      1. You make no since. If anyone has diligently pursued the JFK murder, it has been Mark Lane. Jones was just a mishap
        he happened to get associated with.

      2. H.P. Albarelli Jr.

        Lane’s actions with Jim Jones and in the final Jonestown days are nothing less than terrible and inexcusable. Photon poses a very legitimate question: there has never been an adequate accounting of the missing Jonestown dollars. Jones was much more than a “mishap” for Lane, but I suspect the truth of that story will have a wait a while longer.

        1. Here’s the logic of such a comment: Lane was wrong about Jim Jones and Jonestown, so he must be wrong about the JFK assassination.

          News flash: Einstein got a couple of things wrong. So did Charles Lindbergh. And FDR. The list goes on.

          The idea that Warren critics are either flawless or not to be believed one wit is preposterous.

          1. Jonathan July 9, 2014 at 6:02 pm

            I certainly agree with your point here. But the trouble with Mark Lane is that there seems to be some dishonesty every where he goes. Not just once but every where he goes. It seems to be his way.

            I’d be very careful of anything he said about anything.

        2. Okay, let’s assume the worst about Lane, vis a vis Jonestown, which was a cult slaughter on a terrible scale. Fine.

          Now, let’s look at Lyndon Johnson. He oversaw the slaughter of thousands of US boys in Vietnam. Yet he also signed the Civil Rights Act. Is he all bad? Or a combination?

          When you smear people by association, it can get tricky. John F. Kennedy was a philanderer, a playboy, who couldn’t keep his pants zipped. Yet he also inspired a generation, and brought about the nuclear test ban treaty, as well as a stop to the dangerous escalation during the Cuban Missile Crisis that could have led to a nuclear exchange, with all of the awful fallout and destruction. Is he bad because of his cheating, or good because of his calm leadership during the crisis?

          What’s your point about Lane?

  15. His conspiracy theories helped Jones to rationalize why 900 people had to commit suicide. He also claimed that U.S. military personnel killed some of the dead at Jonestown.
    What a great guy.

    1. I find it offensive that you would try to link Mark Lane, a lawyer who did nothing wrong by looking for discrepancies in the JFK assassination that ran counter to the Warren Commission case with a crazy demagogue who had people killed. Mark Lane is an upstanding citizen who has used responsible methods to interview witnesses and ask questions. He has conducted himself in a civil manner, as even William F. Buckley stated when Lane appeared on his show to argue his case. You may disagree with Lane’s findings, but you have no factual basis for comparing him to a mass murderer.

      1. Educate yourself. Mark Lane was at Jonestown during the mass suicide and the Ryan murder. He was the source for Jones’ claims about a conspiracy between the CIA and “dark forces” that were going to assault and destroy Jonestown and everything it stood for. He was a mouthpiece for Jim Jones and the People’s Temple. I am sorry if you can’t accept the truth,but there it is.

        1. I suggest that you read the article in the NY Times about Mark Lane and the Peoples Temple from Sunday, February 4, 1979.

          1. Paul, I grant that Lane was misled by Jim Jones, but he also tried to save Congressman Leo Ryan’s life, pulling a knife from an assailant’s hand, putting himself at risk in the process.

            And by smearing Lane over this legal representation, how does this relate to his superb investigation of the discrepancies in the JFK assassination, and in particular in his finding the CIA to be involved in it?

            For those who may not know what Lane has done, in the United States District Court in Miami. Lane represented a newspaper that was defending a defamation case brought by E. Howard Hunt, the CIA officer who had been convicted of crimes in the Watergate episode. Lane won the historic case and the jury forewomen stated that Lane had proved to her satisfaction and the other jurors that Hunt and the CIA had been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, a central matter at the trial. Since the Florida press failed to accurately present the facts, Lane wrote a book, Plausible Denial about the matter. It was published by a small company without adequate resources to publicize the work. Nevertheless, it became a New York Times best selling book.

            Smearing Lane with the Jonestown event may make you feel smug, but it doesn’t erase the very effectively argued case Lane made for CIA involvement with Oswald and with the JFK assassination. Have you read Plausible Denial, Paul?

          2. Lane’s actions so disgusted Jonestown survivors that some tried to sue him in court and moves were made to disbar him in New York.JSA, you don’t want to know the truth about Lane’s involvement with Jones and the Peoples Temple. Read the NY Times article and the scales may fall from your eyes.

          3. Paul,

            Here’s the deal: I’ll tell you what I think of Lane’s involvement with Jim Jones if you tell me what you think of John McAdam’s denial of global warming. I’ve asked you about this before but you never answered it. That’s my offer.

            And can we get back to discussion of the JFK assassination after that please?

            J.S.A.

  16. Mark Lane says he started the opposition to the governments false story 50 years ago. I am not so sure that is what he did. I think he did something quite different.

    1. I think an argument can be made that there is not enough division in the JFK research community. If one’s theory is that the assassination was the work of, say, organized crime to neutralize RFK’s fervent pursuit of that enterprise, then evidence of a Cuban, Soviet, CIA or LBJ conspiracy is no more or no less threatening to that theory than the argument that Oswald acted alone.

      Simply refuting lone nutters (like me) doesn’t advance a specific conspiracy premise very far.

      Few conspiracists make a strong effort to close their own loops, it seems to me.

      1. Before I rush to judgement I have to domore research on the jfk assasination. Harold weisbergs work is a must to my study along with vinceb bugliosi seminal work on his support of the warren commission.

        1. weisburg’ “Whitwash” books are very interesting, if only 1/3 of the things he points out are true it definetly raises a lot of questions about who was involved

          1. I am rereading one of Weisburg’s books, he mentions that a witness to the Tippett murder a Mrs. Markham gave a description that fit Gary Marlow, not Oswald, the same Gary Marlow who James Files said shot Tippett, his assignment was to kill Oswald at the Texas theater, Oswald was told to go there by David Atlee Phillips, Oswald was set up as the patsy

          2. I don’t endorse the following website but there are some pictures of Gary Marlow (I read about some guy who wanted to ditch the murder pistol with Files, but Files didn’t accept it. There was a photo without the name, which is also on the following website, but this is the first time I heard that it’s a Gary Marlow).

            http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread615009/pg3

            P.S. There’s also a pic of what looks like JFK cuddling with MM. Never saw that one before.

  17. Nathaniel Heidenheimer

    Any real effort to work towards progress must involve posting OUTWARDS to more general, younger audiences with more “Why Bother” ingredients.

    To many the question of Why bother studying the JFK assassination seems absurd. As a high school history teacher working in this new Completely Corporate educational frontier-nihilism, I can assure you that young people are not getting any meaningful history of the National Security State. And the influence of the ahistorical faux-left is not helping, either.

    We need to include the why bother as the hook, as we spread knowledge the way our master of our new cable and internet mind prison don’t want us to: sideways.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top