Mark Lane, plant or genuine good guy?

[Geoff Johnstone]

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?

[fobrien1]

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 .