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.

R.I.P., Vince Bugliosi - Fervent (But Misguided) Warren Commission Defender

Vince Bugliosi died yesterday at the age of 80. Bugliosi had quite a history as an LA County  prosecutor (in the Charles Manson trial)  but will most likely be remembered by many of us as the author of the most massive tome ever written on the Kennedy assassination, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy .  Alas,  the book's  heft (by 3,5 lbs. weight, a total of 2,646 fulsome pages with CD Endnotes) was too much for  too many and literally defined "excess" though it was passionately written - perhaps too much so with multiple swipes at the conspiracy side.  Some of his hostile, anti-conspiracy chestnuts included:

p. 1258: " ... simple common sense, that rarest of attributes among conspiracy theorists ... " , 

 p. 1275: "But conspiracy theorists are not rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." 

 (p. 1277) " ... silliness is what all of the conspiracy allegations are about ... "

Vince, bless his antagonistic little soul, might have fared better had he pondered these words of Matt Ridley ('Maybe We're All Conspiracy Theorists', in  The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10-11, 2011):

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?"

Sadly, Bugliosi’s penchant for ad hominem didn’t end with the critical conspiracy community – authors but extended to key witnesses and others (e.g. Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden) trying to fight for the truth. For example, Bugliosi refers to the courageous African- American woman Aquilla Clemmons (who pointedly noted that a heavyset man shot Officer J.D. Tippitt, not Oswald) as a “kook”.

Sadder still, were the gazillions of errors, omissions, and misrepresentations. I do not intend to beat up on a dead man but readers who want the details can go to these links:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reclaiming-history-from-vince-bugliosi.html

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

I prefer to remember Bugliosi not for his wayward lurch into the Kennedy assassination, but for his more on- target earlier works  - that really ought to better define him. In that context perhaps his best work was embodied in his 2001 book, 'The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President'. This refers to the noisome interjection of the Court in the 2000 Florida recounts, basically handing the 2000 election to Gee Dumbya Bush. 

As opposed to his meandering, bloated book on the Kennedy assassination, this one is concise, argued rationally and precise in its target:  the five conservo justices who felt it their bounden duty to interfere in a presidential election. In essence, gutting the provisions of the Constitution, by rendering tens of millions of voters redundant.

The book - as opposed to 'Reclaiming History' - is an essential addition to every real citizen's book shelf, along with Greg Palast's 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy'  While Bugliosi attends to the Supreme Court travesty, Palast devotes his focus (in Chapter One) to what came before to make the election close in FL: the removal of  tens of thousands of African- Americans from Florida voter rolls - by reclassifying them as felons. This was masterminded by Jeb Bush (in cahoots with his Secretary, Katherine Harris), with Bush the same piece of crap who now wants to be President.

As an atheist I must also commend Bugliosi for his well -thought out 2011 book, Divinity of Doubt. Again, as compared with his Kennedy book, this one is tightly argued, no errors of fact that I could spot and most notably, he left the ad hominem out.

In a memorable, April 22, 2011 appearance on MSNBC's  'Morning Joe', Bugliosi gave a robust defense of his book and also delivered cogent replies to critical questions by Joe Scarborough. He began by dismissing the god-hood claim, showing that Jesus was not born of a virgin and that the claims for prophetic fulfillment in the New Testament hearken back to Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word used therein is not that for virgin (petula) but the one for “young woman” (almah). Hence, Bugiliosi argued there was a clear indication of no divine origin (which he ties to the gospel authors’ claim of being born of a virgin).

Not missing a beat, Bugliosi then launched into citations from Matthew showing that Yeshua’s own family (e.g. Mary) perceived him as quite “off the beam” or perhaps unhinged mentally, as he goes off preaching. When she questions him about launching off into these Temple preachments he in turn reprimands her to the effect, “Woman, know ye not that I must be about my father’s business?” Which confirmed in her mind that maybe he needs more help than she can provide.

Bugliosi then dispatched the resurrection as an actual historical event, citing references from Matthew in which a number of other people are also claimed to have been resurrected. According to Bugliosi, “Then that means that if others did it too then it has very little real significance. It’s no longer special. What I take away from that is that it’s purely mythological. We can say it is more symbolic than real”.

Interestingly, When Scarborough asked if he was an atheist, he quickly responded, “Absolutely not! I'm an agnostic".

But, of course, as I've noted before,  an agnostic atheist is exactly someone who withholds belief until there is evidence for a claim. A pure agnostic is one who asserts there is an impossibility of ever knowing enough to confer belief.  Clearly, Bugliosi fell in the former category - especially after Peggy Hewinson asked him whether he fretted on going to heaven, accepting what he does and writing such a book, Bugliosi responded tongue in cheek: ”Yes, I’d like to go on to heaven, but I want to take my reason with me!”

The interesting aspect of this take (in conjunction with his dismissal of Christ’s godhood) is that Bugliosi is really an agnostic atheist, as opposed to being a pure agnostic as he claimed. If he was a pure agnostic he’d also agree that the issue of Christ’s godhood - like God's existence- can’t be settled because we don’t have sufficient knowledge to do so. But that was not his approach: as he adamantly claimed to have refuted (“beyond any reasonable doubt”) both the resurrection and Christ’s divinity.

In any case, Vince will now be able to see how many of his earlier claims are true, and indeed, whether there is a "heaven". If there is, which I doubt, I believe he will also meet and greet Lee Oswald there - who will finally get to tell the old prosecutor how wrong he was about there being no conspiracy at work in the Kennedy. assassination- which framed Lee as the bad guy. Hopefully, Vince will finally pay close attention, which he wasn't able to do at the end of his physical life!

Bob Schieffer: Not Worthy to be Called a Journalist After His Oswald Diatribe

It's sad to behold a supposed venerable journalist in decline, but that's what one saw this morning as Bob Schieffer appeared in the next to last segment (on the Zapruder film) of CBS Early Show. When asked by Charlie Rose about whether he believed a lone gunman (e.g. Lee Oswald) killed JFK, or it was a conspiracy - Schieffer not only adhered to the Warren Commission line, but went off on a diatribe, calling Oswald a "madman" and then referring to Oswald "shooting (Dallas P.D. officer) J.D. Tippit in cold blood", and his later arrest at the Texas Theater when he "tried to kill the officers".

Whoa there, Schieffer, let's at least try to get our facts straight! First of all, Lee Oswald was no "madman". Yes, he might have suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, but so do over 12 million Americans - among whom is Brandon Marshall - Chicago Bears wide receiver, who caught a number of catches last night in the Bears' romp over the hapless NY Giants. Later, Marshall appeared on the NFL Channel set for an interview and I detected no latent homicidal or other urges.   At the very most, Oswald's BPD likely incited many furious arguments with wife Marina (like Marshall's earlier altercations with his gf), but not the killing of a President. Especially one that Lee admired and loved, as reported by Marina in a 1993 (30th anniversary)NBC  interview with Tom Brokaw.

The fact that Lee had the ability to muster cogent arguments in notes -  for a lecture delivered at the Jesuit House of Studies, at Mobile's Spring Hill College-  on July 27, 1963, also shows he was certainly not "mad". (This was reported in James Douglass' book, JFK and the Unspeakable , p. 331).

Now, let's examine the death of Officer Tippit -which many lone nut advocates try to invoke as prima facie evidence against Oswald. Tippit was shot to death in Dallas' Oak Cliff area, at the intersection of 10th Street and Patton Avenue - of that there is no doubt. The question is:  WHO did it? Officer Gerald Hill had custody of the .38 supposedly found on Oswald - but given the existence of the Oswald "ghost" photo (at Dallas P.D. HQ - see my March 13 post for the image, details) this could well have been a plant. Hill testified to the Warren Commission that he'd found six live rounds in the chamber and two empty cartridges  (that came from an automatic weapon) at the murder scene. (Revolvers don't discharge shells after firing)

Given Oswald failed a paraffin test for nitrate residue, and given the preceding account, the evidence indicates Oswald never fired a gun that day, period. Full stop.  Further, all the original witnesses asserted in  their original statements to the Dallas cops that the man who fired on Tippit did not resemble Oswald - but rather a heavy set guy - similar to the one shown in the graphic attached. This same character, interestingly, was spotted in one window of the Texas School Book Depository (see inset image) minutes before the assassination and was also the fake "Oswald" reportedly seen in Mexico City, and for which the CIA wire at the time declared: "NO! Not Oswald!"  This was reported (p. 399) in John Newman's book, Oswald and CIA:

"..an American male, who identified himself as Lee OSWALD, contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring whether the Embassy had received any news concerning a telegram which had been sent to Washington. The American was described as approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build, about six feet tall, with a receding hairline."


It was certainly not Oswald, who at only 5'9" (at most) and slight of build (160 lbs.) possessed a decidedly un-athletic physique. Readers can compare his booking photo below with that of the  heavyset bloke :
One would have to be blind, or desperate to insist any commonality existed between the images, hence the two men - which is precisely why the "Oswald in Mexico City" narrative is bogus as a $3 bill.

Anyway, under furious pressure from authorities, most of the original  Tippit killing witnesses subsequently changed their testimony to saying the killer "looked like Oswald." What they were threatened with we don't know, but it's interesting that a number of other  witnesses who came forward that day (e.g. Julia Ann Mercer, Lee Bowers, S.M. Holland et al) were threatened or cajoled into conformity if they insisted anyone but Oswald was the perp - whether in the assassination or the Tippit killing.

Two witnesses never did alter their words: Jack Tatum and Aquilla Clemmons, mainly because the WC never called them or took statements. But Tatum later testified to the HSCA  and Clemmons related to researcher Mark Lane (in the documentary 'Rush to Judgment')  that the killer was clearly a heavy set white male, similar to the guy shown in the inset photo. Ms. Clemmons also confided to Lane that she was admonished by the Dallas Police to remain silent.  Her subsequent silence may well have been warranted given the deaths of dozens of witnesses and people directly involved in the case, including those designated to be called by the HSCA to testify. See e.g.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/a-probability-analysis-of-witness-deaths-within-one-year-of-the-jfk-assassination/

Now, what about the Texas Theater incident? Either Bob Schieffer's memory is failing or he's been reading too much fiction. In fact, the Dallas cops descended on the theater in droves and Oswald, again, never had any chance to fire a shot - even if he'd had a gun. The odd witnesses there all reported Oswald shouted aloud: "I am not resisting arrest! Police brutality!"  Clearly, Oswald had figured out by then he'd been set up as the patsy - and the cover story he'd been fed (that he was to expose the plot) had now turned on him instead. Author James Douglas (op. cit.) conjectures the plot rebounded on Oswald after a phone caller named "Lee" exposed the earlier (Nov. 2, 1963) plot by Thomas Arthur  Vallee to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. When that executive action was scrapped, Oswald became the target...now in Dallas.

Another sub-plot to the plot, involved Assistant District Attorney William Alexander being called to the Texas Theater for Oswald's arrest. Why? Also, why did he accompany officer Gerald Hill to the scene of the Tippit murder? Planting evidence? Confecting it? As per an account cited in the book, 'The Killing of a President' by Robert Groden (p. 101) the real madman appears to be Alexander, who allegedly "once threatened a man in the course of trying to extract a confession by holding a gun to his head and exclaiming, 'You son of a bitch! I will kill you right here!'"

Meanwhile, not to disappoint, after Oswald's arrest, Alexander evidently shouted loudly enough for the next door shop keepers to hear: "You're a god damned communist!" at Oswald. One supposes he was in the loop to tag Oswald with the most horrific label and epithet one could muster at the time.

But Jeezus Christ in  a cap, having a "commie" arrested for a liberal President's murder in a city (Dallas) known then as a right wing citadel makes about as much sense as claiming Lincoln was shot by an anti-slavery Northerner. (Especially after 'Wanted for Treason' posters had been put up all over Big D accusing JFK of consorting with commies! Gimme a break!)

The bottom line here is this Schieffer blather is just the beginning, and Americans will hear a lot more in the weeks ahead on how, 'Oh yes, we (the media) are certain it was Lee Oswald, a lonely, alienated, filthy, degenerate madman, who did the dirty deed' (The 'alienated violent loner' meme also recently resurrected by author Peter Savodnik, in his woefully clueless excuse for a biography, “The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union” . People would do much better to get hold of Robert Groden's 'The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald'.  See: http://www.amazon.com/The-Search-Harvey-Oswald-Comprehensive/dp/0670858676)

Whereupon they all, like Bob Schieffer, become part of the unholy alliance of the 'Unspeakable' articulated by James Douglass: all those who whether intentionally or unintentionally provide cover for the actual perpetrators, conspirators including those who have concealed the truth in the aftermath.