All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes. Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:
Lane is simply LYING BY OMISSION in this footage, pretending that the Warren Commission TOTALLY ignored Brehm and what he had to say. That is not the case at all!
In fact, the guy who TOTALLY IGNORED what Brehm had to say was MARK LANE! Brehm said the shots came from the general direction of the TSBD, not the Grassy Knoll, and took UMBRAGE with the way Lane had quoted him in a later interview for CBS!
Lane is a TOTAL research FRAUD, in my view. No wonder the KGB assisted in funding his <snicker> *research* (if we could dignify it with such a name...).
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.
Er, Tim, not to rain on your parade when you are so gleeful, but do you have any reason to think that Lane knew any research of his was KGB funded? Otherwise, it seems a bit of an unfair ad hominem (poisoning the well, to use the old name for the rhetorical move) to brand him with their mark.
I recall a conference a number of years back with generous amenities and a tropical locale, at which a number of prominent academics spoke. Later, they were shocked to find the Unification Church (better known as the "Moonies") advertising that they had all appeared at the event under Rev. Moon's auspices.
Was Lane's receipt of KGB funding more direct or open?
> Er, Tim, not to rain on your parade when you are so gleeful, but do you
> have any reason to think that Lane knew any research of his was KGB
> funded? Otherwise, it seems a bit of an unfair ad hominem (poisoning the
> well, to use the old name for the rhetorical move) to brand him with their
> mark.
Not fair to ask rumor mongers to back up their smears with facts. This was a very highly coordinated attack by the CIA. Read up on Ned Dolan and his buddy David Atlee Phillips.
> I recall a conference a number of years back with generous amenities and a
> tropical locale, at which a number of prominent academics spoke. Later,
> they were shocked to find the Unification Church (better known as the
> "Moonies") advertising that they had all appeared at the event under Rev.
> Moon's auspices.
We had a similar problem with a conference at Harvard funded by the CIA. When I was new to online sites, a former CIA officer gave me $500 to put his files online. So does that make me a CIA agent? My father was an NSA officer and the liaison to the CIA. He bought me my first computer. So does that make me an NSA agent?
> Was Lane's receipt of KGB funding more direct or open?
> > Er, Tim, not to rain on your parade when you are so gleeful, but do you
> > have any reason to think that Lane knew any research of his was KGB
> > funded? Otherwise, it seems a bit of an unfair ad hominem (poisoning the
> > well, to use the old name for the rhetorical move) to brand him with their
> > mark.
> Not fair to ask rumor mongers to back up their smears with facts. This was
> a very highly coordinated attack by the CIA. Read up on Ned Dolan and his
> buddy David Atlee Phillips.
> > I recall a conference a number of years back with generous amenities and a
> > tropical locale, at which a number of prominent academics spoke. Later,
> > they were shocked to find the Unification Church (better known as the
> > "Moonies") advertising that they had all appeared at the event under Rev.
> > Moon's auspices.
> We had a similar problem with a conference at Harvard funded by the CIA.
> When I was new to online sites, a former CIA officer gave me $500 to put
> his files online. So does that make me a CIA agent? My father was an NSA
> officer and the liaison to the CIA. He bought me my first computer. So
> does that make me an NSA agent?
> > Was Lane's receipt of KGB funding more direct or open?
> What receipt? Show me the receipt. Is it dated?
> > Best,
> > Dave
Why don't YOU back up YOUR smear that the CIA was behind the KGB
reference to Lane, Marsh?
The information came from British intelligence, NOT the CIA.
You are simly rumour mongering about the CIA, Marsh.
As per usual...
Informative 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.
