Mark Lane abruptly leaves an Education Forum discussion?

[Mike]

Mark Lane , a few years ago, apparently agreed to an online discussion
at the Education Forum.

However, according to this link he abruptly left the discussion.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/rna_16nIL6cJ


And according to this information, he left the discussion because of
question he was asked about the editing of Lee Bowers words in his book
"Rush To Judgement".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/bdVCeWMCF0YJ

[HERCULE POIROT]

He abruptly left and went to Jonestown.

[HERCULE POIROT]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:17:14 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

It's too bad Mark Lane never stuck around when Jones told everyone to take
the electric Kool Aid acid test.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Gee, Mike, a lot of us could have told you: Mark Lane is a liar and
the father of lies about the JFK assassination.

[BT George]

...Don't tell me! ...I bet he left because he was Jewish and, therefore,
"obviously" part of the Israeli plot to cover up the truth?

...And just when we were thinking it was because he is a pathological
lier, who was about to be called on one of his lies! :-)

BT George

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:17:14 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

the continuing attacks on Mark Lane from the LN people suggest that his
stuff should be looked into, since anyone the LNs go after usually has
something very worthwhile to say.

Any dirt that's thrown on Mark Lane does NOT invalidate his witnesses,
many of whom have appeared here in videos, and who would never have been
seen if the WC had its way.

Chris

[Mike]

In this case, the allegation is that Mark Lane tried invalidate one of
the people he interviewed.

Lee Bowers did not put the two men he saw behind the fence. Mark Lane
put those men behind the fence.

Lee Bowers was killed in August 9, 1966. Mark Lane published "Rush To
Judgment" also in August 1966.

[Anthony Marsh]

Too many Nazis.

[black...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:53:26 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
> Lee Bowers was killed in August 9, 1966.

'Scuse me: Killed? As in, by another person?

[David Von Pein]

A day or two after Mark Lane posted for the first time at Simkin's
Education Forum, Bud here at aaj/acj predicted that Lane would never reply
to a single question that was asked of him via that forum. And Bud was, as
usual, 100% correct. Lane never replied to a thing.

[cmikes]

No, Mark Lane's history of witness and evidence tampering invalidate his
witnesses.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

Besides, should we really trust someone who was being funded by the
Soviets for the specific purpose of stirring up trouble in the US?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:19:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:17:14 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> > Mark Lane , a few years ago, apparently agreed to an online discussion
>
> >
>
> > at the Education Forum.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > However, according to this link he abruptly left the discussion.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/rna_16nIL6cJ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And according to this information, he left the discussion because of
>
> >
>
> > question he was asked about the editing of Lee Bowers words in his book
>
> >
>
> > "Rush To Judgement".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/bdVCeWMCF0YJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> the continuing attacks on Mark Lane from the LN people suggest that his
>
> stuff should be looked into, since anyone the LNs go after usually has
>
> something very worthwhile to say.

Certainly he says things you will like the sound of, it`s fodder for
conspiracy hobbyists.

> Any dirt that's thrown on Mark Lane does NOT invalidate his witnesses,
>
> many of whom have appeared here in videos,

There is heavy editing done on those videos, no telling what those
witnesses actually said.

> and who would never have been
>
> seen if the WC had its way.

Any real investigation must come to the conclusion that Oswald was
guilty of killing Kennedy, you hobbyists need to accept this and move on.

>
>
> Chris

[HERCULE POIROT]

Too many communists, Marsh. Commies good! Nazis bad! That's your
philosophy.

[Mike]

Mark Lane is Jewish.

Are saying that if someone asks him a touch question they must be a Nazi?

[Anthony Marsh]

As in, by the crash. But there are a few kooks who think someone killed
him.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I hold Lane in pretty low regard but I don't think there's any evidence
that he knew that the Soviets were giving him funds.

Let's not emulate Lane's tactics in our desire to expose him.

Just the truth will do.

[tims...@gmail.com]

My recall is that Lane turned up @ the Ed Forum to flog a book. After a
few fawning platitudes from EF regulars, when the REAL purpose of the
visitation from on high became apparent to the disciples, adulation turned
to resentment.

It's quite an amusing thread if you can find it!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

Not always. Some only do it because the CIA asks them to do it. Some who
go out of their way to lie and insult Mark Lane because he is Jewish are
indeed Nazis.

My comment was more about the type of people in that forum. Like the type
of people in this newsgroup. 1 or 2 Nazis is to be expected by random
chance. But when it gets to be a dozen or more you see a pattern.

[Mike]

Notice that Bowers was killed in a ONE CAR accident.

Lee Bowers was killed in a one car accident on August 9, 1966.


"Lee E. Bowers Jr., 41, of Dallas, died
from injuries received in a one car accident,
Tuesday, August 9.

Bowers traveling alone in a late model
Pontiac, hit a bridge two miles southwest of
Midlothian on highway 67 about 9:30 a.m. He
was taken to W.C. Tenery Community Hospital in
Waxahachie, by a Pat Martin ambulance, and
later transferred to Methodist Hospital in
Dallas where he died at 1:30 p.m.

He was vice-president of Lockwood
Meadows, Inc. in Dallas."

[mainframetech]

Going on talk shows and flogging a book is common practice now, and was
then too, when you could get away with it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh my! Did the US government put him on trial over that?

And in the McAdams dialog it shows that Markham (who is a dingbat and
can't keep anything straight) stated very clearly that the killer was
SHORT, she said it many times without prompting. Try reading her WC
testimony and you'll see that she couldn't understand anything the
questioner was saying and they were having a terrible time with her.

Chris

[mainframetech]

It's not important so much what Lane had to say, but what his
interviewees said. I guess some folks think not answering questions from
a bunch of LNs makes him a liar?

Chris

[mainframetech]

As noted above, the insurance company didn't want to pay out on his
policy because there were questions about his death. He had a cup of
coffee at a roadside diner and went out and ran into an abutment off the
road.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:53:26 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

Yes, there were questions about his death. The insurance company didn't
want to pay out on his policy. Try the statement of Walter Rischel, a
close friend of Bowers. Interesting, especially since Rischel never tried
to make any money from his knowledge, and never tried to write a book of
profit in any way over it.

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

Chris

[cmikes]

If you're taking money from foreign interests to continue an anti-American
crusade during the height of the Cold War, I don't think there would be
any surprise where the money was coming from. But I will concede your
point. Lane might not have known where the money was coming from, he
might have just been dumber than a box of rocks.

[David Von Pein]

"A bunch of LNs"? Get real. The vast majority of Edu. Forum members were
(and are) CTers. And I never asked Lane a single question. And it could be
that no other LNer asked him any questions either (among the incredibly
small number of LNers permitted to be active members at Simkin's forum).

So, as usual, mainframe/Chris is wrong. He thinks only LNers asked Lane
any questions, even though most of the inquiries were coming from people
on Lane's own CT side of the fence, all of which he totally ignored, just
as Bud predicted he would.

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course not. But the CIA can still use the fact that the KGB WANTED to
use him.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2014 10:44 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:45:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:48:44 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> A day or two after Mark Lane posted for the first time at Simkin's
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Education Forum, Bud here at aaj/acj predicted that Lane would never reply
>>
>>>
>>
>>> to a single question that was asked of him via that forum. And Bud was, as
>>
>>>
>>
>>> usual, 100% correct. Lane never replied to a thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not important so much what Lane had to say, but what his
>>
>> interviewees said. I guess some folks think not answering questions from
>>
>> a bunch of LNs makes him a liar?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
> "A bunch of LNs"? Get real. The vast majority of Edu. Forum members were
> (and are) CTers. And I never asked Lane a single question. And it could be
> that no other LNer asked him any questions either (among the incredibly
> small number of LNers permitted to be active members at Simkin's forum).
>

Then how can you claim that people asked him questions and he refused to
answer? He may have even replied via e-mail so you have no way of
knowing what he said.

> So, as usual, mainframe/Chris is wrong. He thinks only LNers asked Lane
> any questions, even though most of the inquiries were coming from people
> on Lane's own CT side of the fence, all of which he totally ignored, just
> as Bud predicted he would.
>

You ASSuME that he never replied. You don't know that for sure.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Lane edits his interviews dishonestly.

[Anthony Marsh]

But he wasn't. This is just a CIA disinformation operation to attack WC
critics.

[David Von Pein]

A Google search for Mark Lane's original thread on the Education Forum was
successful (but for some reason, it won't turn up when you search Mark
Lane's profile at the Education Forum itself, which seems very weird).

Original thread....
https://web.archive.org/web/20130501174932/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15699

It's interesting to note that Lane edited out this part of his
thread-starting post two years after he wrote it.....

"I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions or observations
about Rush To Judgment, Plausible Denial and the fiction work of Vincent
Bugliosi who apparently still believes that the world is flat." -- Mark
Lane; March 31, 2010

The reason I can still quote the above sentence (which, as I said, no
longer exists in Lane's edited version of the post) is because other forum
members have quoted Lane directly within their later posts, so Lane's
original words are still intact and visible.

Two years later, Lane obviously wanted to remove this statement....

"I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions."

However, in April of 2012, just after editing his original 2010 post, Lane
did make several posts in that thread. But he waited more than two years
to show up. And it would appear as if his entire original 2010 post was
completely removed and replaced with a different post that Lane wrote on
March 30, 2012.

[cmikes]

I don't think that necessarily means anything, Tony. Most, but not all,
CTs are on the Progressive/Socialist/National Socialist side of the
political spectrum, but so what? What does a person's politics have to do
with their thoughts on a historical controversy? You've said that you're
a progressive before, so JFK would be generally opposed to your politics,
but again, so what?

[Bud]

Are you trying to prove that you will believe anything you like the sound
of without question?

[Bud]

Are you saying Mark Lane lied when he said he would answer questions
there?

[Bud]

He edits his posts on the Education Forum dishonestly also, his offer to
"...respond on this forum to questions..." no longer appears.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15699&st=0

[Mike]

Marsh,

How is you know so much of what Mark Lane did and you do not know that
he put the men Lee Bowers BEHIND the fence when the men Lee Bowers saw
were IN FRONT of the fence?

Anything that is important you seem to completely ignore.

[Mike]

How many people just drive into bridges?

[Mike]

On 6/12/2014 12:49 PM, cmikes wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:19:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:17:14 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Lane , a few years ago, apparently agreed to an online discussion
>>
>>>
>>
>>> at the Education Forum.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> However, according to this link he abruptly left the discussion.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/rna_16nIL6cJ
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> And according to this information, he left the discussion because of
>>
>>>
>>
>>> question he was asked about the editing of Lee Bowers words in his book
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "Rush To Judgement".
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/bdVCeWMCF0YJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> the continuing attacks on Mark Lane from the LN people suggest that his
>>
>> stuff should be looked into, since anyone the LNs go after usually has
>>
>> something very worthwhile to say.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any dirt that's thrown on Mark Lane does NOT invalidate his witnesses,
>>
>> many of whom have appeared here in videos, and who would never have been
>>
>> seen if the WC had its way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>

> No, Mark Lane's history of witness and evidence tampering invalidate his
> witnesses.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> Besides, should we really trust someone who was being funded by the
> Soviets for the specific purpose of stirring up trouble in the US?
>

We really do not know who was funding Mark Lane.

Mark Lane is Jewish and Israel is a strong suspect in this case.

[Mike]

Tony suffers from a reverse bias.

He thinks that anyone who points to a Jewish involvement in this crime
is a nazi. He is not able to conduct an "honest" investigation because
of that bias and labels others as nazi's.

I dare say this is the reason this case has not been solved in 50 years.

I have said before, and I will say it again. This was an easy case to
solve. But you have to remove all your biases to solve it.

[Mike]

On 6/12/2014 8:37 PM, Mike wrote:

How many people just drive into a bridge?

[HERCULE POIROT]

Vasili Mitrokhin in his 1999 book The Sword and the Shield said that the
KGB helped finance Lane's research on Rush to Judgement.

[black...@aol.com]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:47:27 AM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

> We really do not know who was funding Mark Lane.
> Mark Lane is Jewish and Israel is a strong suspect in this case.

You disgust me.

Have fun with that, mods!

[Mike]

I cannot control your feelings.

I suggest you ignore my posts.

I have no problem ignoring your posts.

[Anthony Marsh]

7,962.

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me? Are you new to this Internet thingy?
I was in Mark Lane's Citizens Commission of Inquiry. And talked to him
several times.

> Anything that is important you seem to completely ignore.
>

You make up a lot of crap.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:47:27 AM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

Do you happen to have a photo of Israel holding the murder weapon?

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

[Bud]

All the people that do.

Anyone check his blood alcohol level?

[Anthony Marsh]

You seem to be confused about Left and Right. Are you also confused by
Up and Down or In and Out.
I was always a Kennedy supporter, but my own politics are much more
radical than he was.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2014 11:28 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> A Google search for Mark Lane's original thread on the Education Forum was
> successful (but for some reason, it won't turn up when you search Mark
> Lane's profile at the Education Forum itself, which seems very weird).
>
> Original thread....
> https://web.archive.org/web/20130501174932/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15699
>
> It's interesting to note that Lane edited out this part of his
> thread-starting post two years after he wrote it.....
>
> "I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions or observations
> about Rush To Judgment, Plausible Denial and the fiction work of Vincent
> Bugliosi who apparently still believes that the world is flat." -- Mark
> Lane; March 31, 2010
>

So obviously the CIA stooges refused to ask him any questions on the
topics he listed and instead posted insulting comments unrelated to the
topics he said he would discuss.

> The reason I can still quote the above sentence (which, as I said, no
> longer exists in Lane's edited version of the post) is because other forum
> members have quoted Lane directly within their later posts, so Lane's
> original words are still intact and visible.
>
> Two years later, Lane obviously wanted to remove this statement....
>
> "I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions."
>
> However, in April of 2012, just after editing his original 2010 post, Lane
> did make several posts in that thread. But he waited more than two years
> to show up. And it would appear as if his entire original 2010 post was
> completely removed and replaced with a different post that Lane wrote on
> March 30, 2012.
>

How can you prove that it was Mark Lane who removed them and not the
Moderators?

[Jason Burke]

Don't forget the three guys last night.

[Bud]

Can you support the idea that he told the truth?

[black...@aol.com]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:11:37 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

> On 6/13/2014 12:07 PM, blackburst wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:47:27 AM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> >> We really do not know who was funding Mark Lane.
>
> >> Mark Lane is Jewish and Israel is a strong suspect in this case.
>
> >
>
> > You disgust me.
>
> >
>
> > Have fun with that, mods!
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> I cannot control your feelings.

You can't control YOUR OWN feelings. And there's a name for it.

>
>
>
> I suggest you ignore my posts.

I suggest that you let go of the hate.

>
>
>
> I have no problem ignoring your posts.

Yes, you do.

[Mike]

You are exposing the way you think not the way I think.

You are exposing what is in your mind not what is my mind.

You need to realize that.

[cmikes]

You seem to not realize that Nazi is short for "National Socialist". Are
you seriously going to argue that any sort of socialist group should be
seen as on the right? The only difference between Socialist and National
Socialist is that Socialist groups believe in a world socialist
dictatorship and National Socialist groups believe in a country by country
socialist dictatorship. Progressives generally align with the world
socialist ideal, but there are some that are closer to the national
socialist side of things.

And yes, that was a problem that Kennedy often had with his supporters.
He was more of an old school liberal Democrat being an anti-Communist, but
a lot of radicals still supported him over the more conservative Nixon.
JFK was the McCain of his day, that happened a lot in 2008, people voting
for the liberal McCain over the VERY progressive Obama.

[HERCULE POIROT]

Mike, are you going to hypnotize him?

[Anthony Marsh]

I've explained this a few dozen times, but you never pay attention.
The original group was a Communist front. Hitler was sent by the Army to
infiltrate it and spy on them. Then he decided to take it over and use
it for his own purposes.

> seen as on the right? The only difference between Socialist and National
> Socialist is that Socialist groups believe in a world socialist
> dictatorship and National Socialist groups believe in a country by country
> socialist dictatorship. Progressives generally align with the world
> socialist ideal, but there are some that are closer to the national
> socialist side of things.
>
> And yes, that was a problem that Kennedy often had with his supporters.
> He was more of an old school liberal Democrat being an anti-Communist, but
> a lot of radicals still supported him over the more conservative Nixon.
> JFK was the McCain of his day, that happened a lot in 2008, people voting
> for the liberal McCain over the VERY progressive Obama.
>

Just stop your cheap revisionism.

[black...@aol.com]

You have an ugly compulsion to blame the whole thing on the Jews and
Israel, so you isolate anyone with a Jewish-sounding name, exaggerate
their relevance to the case, and try to present it as all part of a
pattern. It IS a pattern TO YOU but nobody else. Let's not talk about
agendas here.

[Mike]

You are still expressing things which are in your mind, not my mind.

When I started this investigation I did not even know that Jack Ruby,
Zapruder or Mark Lane were Jewish. I did not know that JFK was against
Israel posessing nuclear weapons. I did not know that Yitzak Rabin was
in Dallas hours before the assassination.

I have exaggerated nothing and I really should because what is obvious
to me is that it is considered "taboo" to accuse Israel of this crime.

I followed the evidence and where it leads. And you may not like it but
I have every right to follow the evidence without being harassed by
someone who hates as you do.

Any hatred in these threads is coming , loud and clear , from you , not
from. I think people can see that.

I did not create the evidence in this case.

It is an established FACT that JFK would not allow Israel to possess
nuclear weapons.

I really do not understand you and I have very little patience for
people like you.

You created the other post by carving out my response to another poster.

You did not show what the other poster said and what I was responding
to. You do that a lot and that is but one reason why I do not normally
respond to you. (Normally if I see your name on a post I do not read it
but if it is a post that I started, I might read it)

You created this post and the other for your own purposes.

As I said before, you are exposing what is in your mind not what is in
my mind.


Here is the part of the previous post that you left out....

[QUOTE]

> No, Mark Lane's history of witness and evidence tampering invalidate his
> witnesses.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> Besides, should we really trust someone who was being funded by the
> Soviets for the specific purpose of stirring up trouble in the US?
>

We really do not know who was funding Mark Lane.

Mark Lane is Jewish and Israel is a strong suspect in this case.

[END QUOTE]



You better get used to this because there whole lot more coming.

[cmikes]

Exactly. Hitler took over a socialist group and continued to use it for
socialist purposes. He just transferred leadership from Moscow to
himself. He believed in an all-powerful, all-controlling God-State
government. Just like the international socialists in Moscow. He just
disagreed who should be in charge of that all-powerful government.
Unless you're going to argue that Hitler was really for democracy and
freedom, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here.

>
> > seen as on the right? The only difference between Socialist and National
>
> > Socialist is that Socialist groups believe in a world socialist
>
> > dictatorship and National Socialist groups believe in a country by country
>
> > socialist dictatorship. Progressives generally align with the world
>
> > socialist ideal, but there are some that are closer to the national
>
> > socialist side of things.
>
> >
>
> > And yes, that was a problem that Kennedy often had with his supporters.
>
> > He was more of an old school liberal Democrat being an anti-Communist, but
>
> > a lot of radicals still supported him over the more conservative Nixon.
>
> > JFK was the McCain of his day, that happened a lot in 2008, people voting
>
> > for the liberal McCain over the VERY progressive Obama.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Just stop your cheap revisionism.

What revisionism? It's no secret and a commonly accepted historical fact
that in the early to mid 1960's there was a huge schism in the Democrat
party between the more old school liberal Democrats like JFK, Humphrey and
Henry Jackson and the more progressive radical wing like McGovern and
Stevenson. Add in to the mix the really radical terrorist organizations
like the SDS and the Weathermen that supported the progressive wing and
you've got a recipe for disaster. A lot of the violence didn't come to a
head till later, like at the 1968 Democrat convention, but the seeds were
already there even during the JFK election.

[OHLeeRedux]

Hitler was a bad person. I think that's all there is to say about that.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Do you understand the difference between a Jewish person who is an
American and an Israeli person or citizen?

The two are not the same. You use the two interchangeably and it's simply
false. Just because someone is Jewish doesn't mean they have an allegiance
towards Israel. Do you understand that?

Because an American involved - directly or indirectly - in this
assassination was Jewish doesn't mean they are connected to Israel. You
seem to think that being Jewish means they automatically are.

There is no evidence that a Jewish American is connected to Israel simply
because they are Jewish.

[tims...@gmail.com]

How can it be proved that it was Mark Lane who removed them?

Because at the bottom of the message in question it says:

QUOTE ON:

Edited by Mark Lane, 30 March 2012 - 07:02 PM.

QUOTE OFF

BTW, the *CIA sttoges* responding to Lane were, by and large, conspiracy
theorists.

As usual, Marsh, you haven't even bothered to do even basic reading on the
matter at hand before running off at the mouth.

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Mike]

Have you ever acknowledged Israels' motive?

Are we supposed to believe that JFK's opposition to Israels nuclear
weapons is something to be ignored?

[mainframetech]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:32:20 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:46:47 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:53:26 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On 6/11/2014 5:19 PM, mainframetech wrote:

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:17:14 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> Mark Lane , a few years ago, apparently agreed to an online discussion
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> at the Education Forum.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> However, according to this link he abruptly left the discussion.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/rna_16nIL6cJ
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> And according to this information, he left the discussion because of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> question he was asked about the editing of Lee Bowers words in his book
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> "Rush To Judgement".
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/bdVCeWMCF0YJ
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > > the continuing attacks on Mark Lane from the LN people suggest that his
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > stuff should be looked into, since anyone the LNs go after usually has
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > something very worthwhile to say.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Any dirt that's thrown on Mark Lane does NOT invalidate his witnesses,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > many of whom have appeared here in videos, and who would never have been
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > seen if the WC had its way.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Chris
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > In this case, the allegation is that Mark Lane tried invalidate one of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the people he interviewed.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Lee Bowers did not put the two men he saw behind the fence. Mark Lane
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > put those men behind the fence.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Lee Bowers was killed in August 9, 1966. Mark Lane published "Rush To
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Judgment" also in August 1966.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yes, there were questions about his death. The insurance company didn't
>
> >
>
> > want to pay out on his policy. Try the statement of Walter Rischel, a
>
> >
>
> > close friend of Bowers. Interesting, especially since Rischel never tried
>
> >
>
> > to make any money from his knowledge, and never tried to write a book of
>
> >
>
> > profit in any way over it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNivLlyMneU
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Chris
>
>
>
> Are you trying to prove that you will believe anything you like the sound
>
> of without question?




As usual, you failed to read what I wrote. I suggested folks "try" the
statement of Walter Rischel, and I provided a link for them to do that.
They can then decide if it has a bearing on the case. It apparently
bothers you,. so I'll keep it as a useful piece of information. Thanks!

Seek help form bigdog.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 11:28:12 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> A Google search for Mark Lane's original thread on the Education Forum was
>
> successful (but for some reason, it won't turn up when you search Mark
>
> Lane's profile at the Education Forum itself, which seems very weird).
>
>
>
> Original thread....
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20130501174932/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15699
>
>
>
> It's interesting to note that Lane edited out this part of his
>
> thread-starting post two years after he wrote it.....
>
>
>
> "I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions or observations
>
> about Rush To Judgment, Plausible Denial and the fiction work of Vincent
>
> Bugliosi who apparently still believes that the world is flat." -- Mark
>
> Lane; March 31, 2010
>
>
>

> The reason I can still quote the above sentence (which, as I said, no
>
> longer exists in Lane's edited version of the post) is because other forum
>
> members have quoted Lane directly within their later posts, so Lane's
>
> original words are still intact and visible.
>
>
>
> Two years later, Lane obviously wanted to remove this statement....
>
>
>
> "I will, of course, respond on this forum to questions."
>
>
>
> However, in April of 2012, just after editing his original 2010 post, Lane
>
> did make several posts in that thread. But he waited more than two years
>
> to show up. And it would appear as if his entire original 2010 post was
>
> completely removed and replaced with a different post that Lane wrote on
>
> March 30, 2012.

Hmm. Sounds like a guy that has many oars in the water and doesn't want
to be tied down to one forum answering questions from angry LNs all day.
Better to answer none than a few. And taking back a wisecrack might be a
good idea for anyone that wants to bring things before the public. I've
always found it a better policy to never get angry at constant insult or
wise cracks, and present a calm, face to such drivel.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:44:22 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:45:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:48:44 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > A day or two after Mark Lane posted for the first time at Simkin's
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Education Forum, Bud here at aaj/acj predicted that Lane would never reply
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to a single question that was asked of him via that forum. And Bud was, as
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > usual, 100% correct. Lane never replied to a thing.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It's not important so much what Lane had to say, but what his
>
> >
>
> > interviewees said. I guess some folks think not answering questions from
>
> >
>
> > a bunch of LNs makes him a liar?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Chris
>
>
>
> "A bunch of LNs"? Get real. The vast majority of Edu. Forum members were
>
> (and are) CTers. And I never asked Lane a single question. And it could be
>
> that no other LNer asked him any questions either (among the incredibly
>
> small number of LNers permitted to be active members at Simkin's forum).
>
>
>

> So, as usual, mainframe/Chris is wrong. He thinks only LNers asked Lane
>
> any questions, even though most of the inquiries were coming from people
>
> on Lane's own CT side of the fence, all of which he totally ignored, just
>
> as Bud predicted he would.

As usual, DVP rewords things and gets them wrong. My point was that LNs
do most of the attacking on Lane, and my belief is that it is because he
has come up with some of the most important facts in the case. His
interviews have shown that the FBI lied and were falsely reporting peoples
statements, his interviews have shown parts of the case that no one knew
about, such as the extra man that may have been at the scene of the Tippit
shooting.

It's similar to politics, the person that is gone after the heaviest,
is the one that might do the most damage to your own viewpoints.

Chris

[Bud]

Didn`t they?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Please respond to my point about the difference between a Jewish American
and a Jewish Israeli?

The fact that someone is Jewish doesn't mean they're working for or are
connected to or even sympathetic to Israel. You do know that there are
Jewish Americans who think the state of Israel shouldn't exist? Indeed,
are anti-Israel.

You do understand that JFK faced this same charge? That because he was
Roman Catholic that his allegiance was to the Vatican and the Pope? And
not to the US?

It's an illogical and demonstrably false claim.

A Jewish American may or may not have allegiance to Israel over the US.
But the fact that they're Jewish by itself doesn't prove it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes. It is a motive to assassinate.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's all the same to an anti-Semite.

[Anthony Marsh]

JFK was a Liberal and proud to call himself a Liberal.
We've been over this 1,000 times and you rightwingers keep trying to
rehabilitate yourselves by calling JFK a rightwinger.

[cmikes]

Exactly my point. JFK was a Liberal in the old sense of the word, what we
would call a Libertarian today. He was pro-American, pro-freedom, and
anti-Communist. He was aligned with the Humphrey/Jackson wing of the
party as opposed to the Progressive wing that rules the Democrat party to
this day. What do you think the 1968 Democrat convention was about? It
was a purge to try to get rid of the Liberal wing of the party and bring
about the ascension of the Progressives. Yes, this was after JFK but the
seeds were already there in the early 60s. You said yourself that you
were more radical (progressive) than JFK, I'm just saying that there were
a lot of people like you.

[Mike]

I did respond to your point.

I am asking you do you acknowledge Israels motive in this case?

If you cannot answer that then you are telling me there is a connection.

[Bud]

Typical of how information is processed by a conspiracy hobbyist, the
information goes in clear and comes out distorted. Lane offered to answer
questions in what is largely a conspiracy oriented forum. But then he did
not do what he said he would do. Somehow you feel that LNers are
responsible for for Lane`s behavior.

[HERCULE POIROT]

JFK was not a rightwinger. JFK read the writings of Harold Laski who was
a socialist.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

'Mark Lane abruptly leaves Oswald Innocence Campaign as 'Senior Member' ?
That's what I though it first said, sorry.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Israel had no motive in this assassination.

There, I answered your question.

It's not the answer you want but it's the right answer.

You cannot cite a single shred of evidence that they were involved in the
assassination of JFK. Saying that they opposed JFK because he opposed
their nuclear program is not evidence that they killed him.

JFK opposed the very existence of the Cuban regime. Is that evidence that
the Cubans were involved?

Of course not.

Saying "A" did not like "B" and then "B" is killed is not showing evidence
that "A" killed "B".

[Anthony Marsh]

Israel did not have a motive to assassinate President Kennedy.

> If you cannot answer that then you are telling me there is a connection.
>

What kind of backwards logic is that?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, a Libertarian is not a Liberal. They are conservatives. Polite Nazis.

> anti-Communist. He was aligned with the Humphrey/Jackson wing of the
> party as opposed to the Progressive wing that rules the Democrat party to
> this day. What do you think the 1968 Democrat convention was about? It
> was a purge to try to get rid of the Liberal wing of the party and bring
> about the ascension of the Progressives. Yes, this was after JFK but the
> seeds were already there in the early 60s. You said yourself that you
> were more radical (progressive) than JFK, I'm just saying that there were
> a lot of people like you.
>

So you say that the assassination of RFK was exactly like the
assassination of JFK, a plot by the Liberals to get rid of the
Progressives? First time I've heard that theory.

>

[Mike]

I did not ask you what the evidence was.

I asked you if JFK's opposition to Israel possessing nuclear weapons was a
motive for Israel.

You say that is not a motive.

Why should I believe anything else you tell me?

There are some things that are self evident and that is one of them.

That is a question that has only one reasonable answer.

[BT George]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 10:59:57 AM UTC-5, Mike wrote:

No you did not---at least not in this thread. If I have missed where you
have responded to his point directly, wherther here or elsewhere, cite it
or link to it.

BT George

[Mike]

You are contradicting yourself again Tony.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/iG79UWmNDWo/4tBQkIlucdkJ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/15/2014 8:41 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:44:22 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:45:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:48:44 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> A day or two after Mark Lane posted for the first time at Simkin's
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Education Forum, Bud here at aaj/acj predicted that Lane would never reply
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> to a single question that was asked of him via that forum. And Bud was, as
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> usual, 100% correct. Lane never replied to a thing.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It's not important so much what Lane had to say, but what his
>>
>>>
>>
>>> interviewees said. I guess some folks think not answering questions from
>>
>>>
>>
>>> a bunch of LNs makes him a liar?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> "A bunch of LNs"? Get real. The vast majority of Edu. Forum members were
>>
>> (and are) CTers. And I never asked Lane a single question. And it could be
>>
>> that no other LNer asked him any questions either (among the incredibly
>>
>> small number of LNers permitted to be active members at Simkin's forum).
>>
>>
>>
>> So, as usual, mainframe/Chris is wrong. He thinks only LNers asked Lane
>>
>> any questions, even though most of the inquiries were coming from people
>>
>> on Lane's own CT side of the fence, all of which he totally ignored, just
>>
>> as Bud predicted he would.
>
>
>
> As usual, DVP rewords things and gets them wrong. My point was that LNs
> do most of the attacking on Lane, and my belief is that it is because he
> has come up with some of the most important facts in the case. His

No, it is because the CIA has an official program to attack Lane whether
or not his discoveries are important.

[HERCULE POIROT]

Marsh, your political spectrum does not make any sense.

[cmikes]

So you're claiming that a Libertarian, someone who believes in maximum
individual freedom and minimum government control is somehow the same as a
national socialist, who like progressives believe in an all-powerful,
all-controlling, God-State government which controls every aspect of it's
subjects lives? That's ludicrous, even for you. You seem way to
intelligent to actually believe that, so I guess you're just trolling me.

> > anti-Communist. He was aligned with the Humphrey/Jackson wing of the
>
> > party as opposed to the Progressive wing that rules the Democrat party to
>
> > this day. What do you think the 1968 Democrat convention was about? It
>
> > was a purge to try to get rid of the Liberal wing of the party and bring
>
> > about the ascension of the Progressives. Yes, this was after JFK but the
>
> > seeds were already there in the early 60s. You said yourself that you
>
> > were more radical (progressive) than JFK, I'm just saying that there were
>
> > a lot of people like you.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So you say that the assassination of RFK was exactly like the
>
> assassination of JFK, a plot by the Liberals to get rid of the
>
> Progressives? First time I've heard that theory.
>

What are you talking about? Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK because of his
support of Israel over the Palestinians. While he was obviously very
concerned about Palestinian politics, I'm not aware that he had any
domestic politics at all. Was he considered a big progressive or
something?

>
> >

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I said it was not a motive for the state of Israel to kill him. Israel
was, and is, a liberal democracy. It's not run by a bunch of murderous
thugs.

They had no motive to kill JFK. Lots of countries opposed Israel's nuclear
program. Did the state of Israel go around killing the leader's of those
countries? Of course not.

Frankly, I don't think you know a single thing about Jewish people or the
government of the state of Israel.

Or at the very least what you think you know is wrong.

[HERCULE POIROT]

Anyone who disagrees with Marsh is a National Socialist. Any conservative
who disagrees with Marsh is a NAZI.

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm talking about your theory of Liberals vs progressives.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

To clarify, at one point I realized that Josiah Thompson misrepresented
the statement s of F. Lee Mudd in Six Seconds in Dallas. I asked him
about this on the forum and he admitted his mistake. I asked Lane about
Bowers hoping he would admit his mistake as well. I was disappointed that
he did not but came to understand why. Everyone wants to pile on Lane. CTs
resent his success and LNs consider him the ant-Christ. Witness this
thread. the old bit about a commie front funding Lane was regurgitated.
Well,anyone knowing anything ant this knows the source for this admitted
it was a paltry sum,and that Lane knew nothing about it. It's like saying
Nixon was a Nazi because Hitler's third cousin ate at Nixon Burgers.

[Anthony Marsh]

Israel is nothing even close to a democracy. It may be more liberal than
most countries, but the conservatives hold substantial power. And Israel
has always been run by a bunch of murderous thugs. That is its only reason
for existing.

[Mike]

I think it is a good thing that I am not too closely attached to Israel.
It allows me to OBJECTIVELY look at the data.

If what you say is true Isreal would not have lied to JFK about the
Dimona nuclear weapons plant. Israel would have been open and welcoming
to the inspections that JFK was demanding.

In the letter below JFK tells us the Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assured
him(JFK) that Dimona was devoted entirely to peaceful purposes.

Today we know that Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and they were
developed at Dimona.

The letter reveals to us today that the Prime Minister of Isreal lied to
JFK.

Here is a link to a letter from JFK to Prime Minister Eshkol on July 5
1963.

In that letter JFK says the following...

"You are aware , I am sure, of the exchanges I had with Prime Minister
Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel's nuclear facility at
Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words
reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know
is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine,. We welcomed the
former Prime Minister's strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted
exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel's
willingnes to permit periodic visits to Dimona..."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/exchange/01-02.htm

[Bud]

The main problem with Lane is that he set himself up as the middle man
between the largely ignorant public and the facts of the case. Anyone need
only look at the information Helen Markham related to him and how he
misrepresented this information to the Warren Commission to know he is not
someone to be trusted conveying information.

[bpete1969]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:17:14 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
> Mark Lane , a few years ago, apparently agreed to an online discussion
>
> at the Education Forum.
>
>
>
> However, according to this link he abruptly left the discussion.
>
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/rna_16nIL6cJ
>
>
>
>
>
> And according to this information, he left the discussion because of
>
> question he was asked about the editing of Lee Bowers words in his book
>
> "Rush To Judgement".
>
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/BLpU-_cjgEY/bdVCeWMCF0YJ

Jolly-Aid anyone?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

One person mentioned the money from the Soviets and several others said
the claim, i.e., that he knowingly took it, was wrong.

So I think your complaint is weak.

[Anthony Marsh]

Mark Lane was an investigator. He got a tip about Markham from the local
press and wanted to confirm it with her directly.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Governments always keep secrets, even from allies.

> In the letter below JFK tells us the Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assured
> him(JFK) that Dimona was devoted entirely to peaceful purposes.
>

And they have never used them in war.

> Today we know that Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and they were
> developed at Dimona.
>

Just as we say Mutually Assured Destruction has kept the Peace.

> The letter reveals to us today that the Prime Minister of Isreal lied to
> JFK.
>

Yeah, so what?

> Here is a link to a letter from JFK to Prime Minister Eshkol on July 5
> 1963.
>
> In that letter JFK says the following...
>
> "You are aware , I am sure, of the exchanges I had with Prime Minister
> Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel's nuclear facility at
> Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His
> words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that
> I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine,. We
> welcomed the former Prime Minister's strong reaffirmation that Dimona
> will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation
> also of Israel's willingnes to permit periodic visits to Dimona..."
>
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/exchange/01-02.htm
>

Did the US reciprocate and allow Israel to inspect US nuclear facilities?

[Bud]

What local press was that?

[bpete1969]

We can't hold Mark Lane accountable for anything.

His fellow OIC member, Ralph Cinque, claims that the great Mark Lane was
just a dupe. Ralph maintains that Oswald's mommy that we all know is a
fake.

When I told Ralph that Mark Lane was a "Kennedy Killer" because he
furthered the hoax by representing Oswald's mommy, Ralph said Mark Lane
was duped by Oswald's mommy.

Poor Mark Lane.....

[Anthony Marsh]

Dallas.