Showing posts with label David Talbot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Talbot. Show all posts

Saturday, May 14, 2016

R.I.P. Mark Lane - One Of The Earliest JFK Conspiracy Analysts

Mark Lane, called a "theorist" by the MSM, but he was in fact the first JFK conspiracy analyst.

Sadly, JFK conspiracy analyst Mark Lane ('Rush to Judgment', 'Plausible Denial', 'The Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA In the Murder of John F Kennedy') died yesterday. While the corporate news media (e.g. New York Times, CBS Evening News' and Scott Pelley) referred to Lane as one of the first "conspiracy theorists" he was in fact one of the first and best conspiracy analysts. The distinction is important, because as Dr. Pat Bannister showed, it marked the difference between a mature, rational, tempered approach to a case, and a scattershot, irrational, immature set of wild conjectures.

Long before the arrival of David Talbot, Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Marsh, James DiEugenio, Walt Brown, James Douglass, David Lifton and Philip Nelson, there was Mark Lane, showing the multitude of ways that the Warren Commission and its Report was one of the most monumental frauds in history. For those like myself, originally blinded and misled by egregious WC apologias like 'Portrait of an Assassin' by Gerald R. Ford, it was like having one's eyes finally opened.

Rush to Judgment, Lane's 1966 work, tore the propaganda lid off the Warren Commission Report in so many ways they are impossible to count. From the coercion and misrepresentation of WC witnesses, to the false portrayals of numerous aspects - including the "sniper's nest", the bullets, Jack Ruby's entry into the Dallas PD basement, the Tippitt killing, the autopsy, and the rifle tests. Indeed, Lane was one of the few early critics to present the full, factual details of the WC rifle tests and how they failed to replicate the alleged Oswald shots. (Edward J. Epstein also presented them, to his credit)

Taking one specific example, Lane showed the misdirection used in the Warren Report to do with the conditions applicable to Oswald's USMC  rifle test scores, citing the questioning of a Major Eugene D. Anderson in reference to Commission Exhibit No. 239. (p. 124).  From his ambivalent  testimony, the WC simply published Anderson's speculations on what the weather on May 6, 1959 might have been - e.g. for Oswald to have achieved low test firing scores.. Anderson at first  saying "it was an ideal day" for firing conditions then that "it might have been a bad day for firing the rifle"  But as Lane pointed out (ibid.):

"Although the Commission adopted and published the major's speculation on what the weather 'might well have been'  there was no need for imprecision on this point. Whenever weather is a factor in a court case in the United States, the records of the United States Weather Bureau are subpoenaed and presented as a matter of course.  ... The Weather Bureau records show that the day was not 'windy, rainy, dark', it was sunny and bright and no rain fell."

On exposing this sin of egregious omission or oversight, for example, Lane was able to show the sundry others clearly used to distort public perceptions. In any case, the failure to even recognize that official records were available for the date, showed that the  WC "blue ribbon" panel wasn't what it was cracked up to be.

Following on from his book, Lane prepared a video with the same title, in which actual assassination witnesses were interviewed including: S.M. Holland, Lee Bowers, Aquilla Clemmons,  Orville Nix and others. In the case of S. M. Holland, e.g.

Lane escorted him to the top of the Triple Underpass overlooking Dealey Plaza to assess the full layout including the grassy knoll, and the curve of Elm Street around the Texas School Book Depository. Subsequently,  Lane actually walked with Holland down to the picket fence on the grassy knoll showing clearly its height would have concealed an assassin. Holland also recounted for Lane the questions never asked him by the Commission.

The interview with railroad worker Lee Bowers (later found dead in an apparent accident) disclosed the movement of men and a vehicle ('58 or '59 Chevy, tires covered with mud) behind the picket fence on the knoll just before the assassination. Then, Orville Nix confirmed his film was seized  (by alleged government agents) and returned altered with specific frames missing. (Nix took his movie from the opposite side of Elm Street to Zapruder.)

It was this attention to detail and the will to call out the bogus Warren Commission that appealed to skeptics and critics, paving the way for others to enter the fray as they have for the past 50 -odd years. All of this directed at breaking the stranglehold of PR and propaganda to get at the truth. Lane's additional books further extended his critical inquiry approach, finally ending with 'The Last Investigation' which at last zeroes in on the CIA as the prime culprits behind the deed, since backed up by David Talbot's recent  “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government”.

Even indirectly, Lane was able to expose the work of WC apologists and hacks like Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi as slipshod and misleading. For example, in his cinder block farce 'Reclaiming History', Bugliosi claimed Mark Lane, never mentioned in his book Rush to Judgment, that Oswald had been arrested. Bugliosi’s exact words are: “He doesn’t even mention Oswald’s arrest”.

Bugliosi's snafu showed he  thought many readers either never would read (or wouldn't have access) to his book or Lane’s, but he was wrong. When I checked my copy of Lane’s book I found (p. 81) not only the details of the place of arrest but the time and the words “Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater at approximately 1.50 p.m. that day”.

The question that emerged from this was: If Bugliosi could fail to check his claims, or worse,  lie with impunity on even a minor pro forma (generally accepted) event as concerns the critical pro-conspiracy community, how many larger events would he be prepared to misrepresent in the interest of his propaganda? 

Make no mistake that the entire JFK research community is indebted to Mark Lane, who even to this day assorted WC apologists and lackeys have attempted to slander, diminish or dismiss. But his work will remain with us as perpetual markers to the truth about the conspiracy behind the assassination, including spurring dozens of others to take up the mantle and proceed onward - with the same courage as Lane.

Footnote:


If Hillary wants to do us a favor in terms of releasing government files, she can leave out the "Area 51" UFO stuff and just release the George Joannides CIA files pertaining to his running disaffected Cubans in advance of the Kennedy assassination. Let's hope she at least tries to equal what hubby Bill did in terms of his released files (in accord with the JFK Records Act). Then, we might be able to say she accomplished something - assuming she ascends to the Oval Office.

Monday, November 11, 2013

NY Times Exec Editor Jill Abramson Schooled on JFK History

It was delightful to read the New York Times Book Section yesterday to see Executive Editor Jill Abramson schooled by none other than Prof. John K. Galbraith on history to do with JFK's intention to pull all personnel out of Vietnam. Whether Abramson is another asset deployed by the CIA, is open to debate. But according to CIA document 1035-960 - in one highlighted paragraph- a primary objective is:

"To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics.  Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose".


Is Ms. Abramson a dupe (like former NY Times reporter Philip Shenon) or a dope? We can't be sure but she did write in her Oct. 27  book review piece:

"The belief that he (Kennedy) would have limited the American presence in Vietnam is rooted as much in the romance of 'what might have been' as in the documented record.'

Actually, if Abramson was capable of half as much (FOIA) search capability (in the documented records) as she is spouting malarkey she'd never have made such an idiotic statement. But maybe she and Shenon are hitched at the hip as assets to deflect attention, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/author-philip-shenon-is-he-idiot-or-dupe.html

Or, she's just ignorant. Perhaps willingly so. Otherwise Prof. Galbraith wouldn't have had to write (p. 6, Letters, Book Section):

"The record shows that on Oct. 2 and 5, 1963, John F. Kennedy issued a formal decision to withdraw American forces from Vietnam. I documented this 10 years ago in Boston Review and Salon, and in 2007 in the New York Times Review of Books.  The relevant documents include records of the Secretary of Defense conference in Honolulu in May, 1963; tapes and transcripts of the decision meetings in the White House; and a memorandum from Gen. Maxwell Taylor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Oct. 4, 1963, which states:

All planning will be directed toward preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. Special Assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965.'

If Abramson is writing in the putative premier newspaper in the U.S. why couldn't she get the documents before spouting abject nonsense? Hell, she didn't even have to dig them up herself, merely research a bit (her own newspaper's archives) and get hold of Prof. Galbraith's NY Times Book Section piece from 2007. Is she that incompetent? Or is she a part of an ongoing "Operation Mockingbird" operation - the residue of the CIA's stamp on dozens of American newspapers dating from the 1960s?  To see a Youtube video on 'Mockingbird', with open admissions,  go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0

Also, see: Kathryn Olmstead:  Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI, Univ. of North Carolina Press,.

David Talbot, in his Salon.com article  The New York Times is Still Lying to Us, observes:

"We’ll never know, we’ll never know, we’ll never know. That’s the mocking-bird media refrain this season as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of America’s greatest mystery – the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson hijacked a large chunk of her paper’s Sunday Book Review to ponder the Kennedy mystery. And after deliberating for page after page on the subject, she could only conclude that there was some “kind of void” at the center of the Kennedy story. "

Actually, there's no "void" at all other than to working CIA assets, ignorant dopes or disinformationist pawns whose intent is to keep Americans from exploring a critical juncture in their history - when the national security and war state likely assumed control of the nation, turning all future presidents into complicit puppets.

For more on this get hold of Peter Dale Scott's book, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11 and the Deep Politics of War.  which discloses the parallels between Kennedy's murder and 9/11. (Note: this book is not for mental lightweights!)

Also see this video featuring Prof. Scott:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WgarbaC8Nw

On this Veterans Day, the most significant action an American citizen can take is to learn about our history, our real history - our hidden history, not the bunkum on offer from most of the media. By doing so we also can ensure no future unnecessary loss of lives arising from security state and  warmongers' manipulations. Until we do the heavy mental lifting and exercise our wills, apart from being infantile "consumers", we will remain hostage to the military industrial complex and see more and more lives lost on account of foolish military adventures- entered into without sufficient serious forethought.

We ought to also be wary of hyper-military propaganda - such as the soldiers are "protecting our freedoms". NO, they are not! Nothing they are doing whether in the Afghanstan theater or Iraq, is "protecting" my freedom. As Justin Doolitle puts it in today's salon.com: ('Stop thanking the troops for me: No, they don’t “protect our freedoms!”)

The combination of unanimous, entirely uncritical appreciation for the military, and the irrational belief that we owe gratitude to the troops for virtually everything we cherish in life, up to and including freedom itself, is very dangerous for our intellectual culture. It stifles any potential for rational, coherent discussion on these matters. It makes us, free citizens of a constitutional society, meek and excessively obeisant.

Doolittle adds that: The corollary to the claim that our freedom exists only at the pleasure of the military, of course, is that the same military can revoke said freedom if it so desires.

Irrespective of our political afffiliation, that's something we all ought to bear in mind - before we next sacrifice our critical thinking to the absurd mantra that the "troops are protecting our freedoms".