I was watching and listening to the excellent John Judge but he said something that I thought was very odd.
He said Mark Lane isnt really what we think he is and that he is some sort of government stooge. I have read all Lane's JFK books, listened to his debates, his interviews and watched his movie and I find him very genuine.
I know JJ was a staunch friend and was mentored by the excellent Mae Brussel who didnt like Mark Lane and wondered if thats where his feelings originated.
Whats your opinion of Mark Lane?
the late john judge was excellent . i watch him even now on youtube and you can see just how knowledgeable and well researched he was , he talks and what he says is compelling .
ive seen him on a panel recently in a video , sadly he had an idiot to his left on the panel (dan moldea) , judge didnt lower himself to moldeas level , he just reeled off fact after fact that moldea made no effort to refute . on the far right side of the panel was the late fletcher prouty .when prouty mentioned a name moldea repeatedly jumped in saying OH NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT PERSON WAS INVOLVED IN YOUR CONSPIRACY ? . moldea reminds me of LN on youtube , LN that know they cant refute the facts in front of them so they try to ridicule you with nonsense you never said and about a vast conspiracy that everyone was in on . to see a grown man (moldea ) act the way he did is a pitiful .
prouty to his credit never reacted to moldeas antics , he simply turned to the audience and gave them more facts and more information .
judges mother had an interesting job in 63 and was smack dab in the middle of things in washington dc . on november 25 the day of jfks funeral she was told to work out projections for a 10 year war in vietnam . which shows just how quick lbj got to reversing jfks policies .
some authors / researchers had a problem with others . weisberg was a bit bitter that he did such great work but that others got mentioned , such as garrison . different authors disagree on certain things , for example groden refuses to look at some pretty valid evidence that could mean that the zapruder film was in some way edited . i say edited not altered . groden says the film is proof of a frontal shot (back and to the left ) so he doesnt want to know about anything that might refute that . all 4 motorcycle officers behind jfk were asked and said the limo did a "rolling stop" , it didnt stop completely but a near stop for a few short seconds .
as a driver i understand the speeds we are talking about here . the limo having turned from houston to elm was traveling 10 to 12 miles per hour . thats pretty slow on the road , you are driving in the lower gears (with a stick shift ) 2nd gear maybe 3rd gear , when you factor in greer stepping on the brakes multiple times the cars speed drops to all most walking speed all be it for just several seconds . that has a knock on affect on the motorcade behind . they also slowed greatly , thats why people said the motorcade stopped , to all intents and purposes for a few seconds it did . but LN dont like that because they think to admit that is to admit that the limo also stopped .
groden wants nothing to do with these witnesses . so some authors have a problem with him and they with him .
no doubt we had some wonderful people , may b russell , sylvia meagher , john judge , weisberg , lane , josiah thompson , garrison etc , and these days we also have some great people . but as researchers we all need to be on the same page , yes we may not agree on everything but we can stand together . sadly some were bitter like wiesberg , he did a lot of fantastic work while the likes of lane and garrison got all the press . its a pity .
to be honest i prefer to be guided by facts , that is what we can prove or disprove irrefutably rather than to be guided by any individual . we know that LN look on bugliosi as a messiah of some sort , the bringer of truth lol . if the bug said its so well IT MUST BE SO . likewise with posner . i mean citing facts from a book or author (if proven and irrefutable) is fine , but to rely on one author as LN do with bugliosi ? no not for me . so i dont rely on lane or thompson or weisberg or judge etc , but all authors even bugliosi give us some facts , we just have to research and ensure they are facts .
lane is attacked by LN because he wrote or claimed certain things in the early days . they make no allowance that so much was sealed away , and little information was available early on . what might have honestly been believed true and accurate in 65 could be shown to now be true years/ decades later . we must remember that weisberg and lane and the early researchers had no computers , no internet , and as i said much information was sealed away . with what they had they did a great job . inevitably i think errors would be made , inaccurate claims made , but the important thing is that they later put that right . and ct to be fair usually do . have posner and bugliosi righted their wrongs ? the answer is no .
lane is also attacked because he was jim jones lawyer . as tho who a lawyers client is discredits the lawyer , or in this case we should not believe lane when he wrote or spoke about jfk because he was jim jones lawyer . LN even stupidly try and claim that he had some involvement in the jones town deaths .
without doubt there have been and are people whos sole purpose is to push the lone nut version of events or muddy the waters further . dave perry (gary macks partner in crime ) claimed to be ct but we know that was not the case . mack himself changed to the LN side . dale myers was a ct who switched to the other side . were they ever true ct ? myers is recorded in interview saying he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that oswald did not shoot jfk or tippit . how do you go from that to rabid LN ? .
posner pretended in the early days to be ct , that allowed him to get in ct circles . weisberg even gave him access to his file cabinets . so i guess we need to know who we can trust , because clearly there are some that we cant . so maybe as i said we should not let people distract us away from the facts , because the facts are more important .