tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post6401463578055043242..comments2024-03-02T21:58:21.667-08:00Comments on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Gary KingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-11922209086930354642014-06-05T13:36:56.873-07:002014-06-05T13:36:56.873-07:00Gary,
Instead of your show focusing on the shortc...Gary,<br /><br />Instead of your show focusing on the shortcomings of your "fellow researchers", how about a show on the new evidence that's come to light in the wake of the AARB work? It would certainly be more entertaining than the current format, which is, to be generous, sophomoric.OOTPGuruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01728291685566891121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-72736915378036018202014-05-09T08:57:49.146-07:002014-05-09T08:57:49.146-07:00Well, it's clearly a waste of time trying to d...Well, it's clearly a waste of time trying to debate anything with you because all you do is spout spurious BS rather than make any cogent points.<br /><br />You have failed to address any of the points I have made, not a single one. all you have done is attack people who I didn't even refer to or use as sources.<br /><br />Overall, pretty pathetic and moronic.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-19183962934481115392014-05-08T20:50:30.990-07:002014-05-08T20:50:30.990-07:00Welcome to Allan Weisbecker's Bandito Books
h...Welcome to Allan Weisbecker's Bandito Books <br />http://www.banditobooks.com/nav-essays.php<br /><br />Think mankind went to the moon? Think again! Check out my interview on Revolution Radio:<br /><br />PART ONE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jewOxhe6whI<br /><br />PART TWO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-UOaSp06nE<br /><br />PART THREE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lD0M2XWXgw<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-86396082752546177872014-05-08T20:44:04.723-07:002014-05-08T20:44:04.723-07:00A.C. Weisbecker wrote:
Something new on the sub...A.C. Weisbecker wrote: <br /><br />Something new on the subject is at<br />www.banditobooks.com<br /><br />...has to do with why people cannot accept the truth about what happened then and is happening now...<br />__________________________________<br />Isn't this amazing! Last night, I went over to the fakeologist website, and listened to three hours of you and the host talking about fakery, JFK, the moon hoax, etc. <br /><br />Now, I did believe the moon thing was a hoax, and have tried to watch the rationale for that but always was too bored by the explanations. Now, here you are with this tiny clip and also you tube segments that explain the hoax in a nutshell. <br /><br />I did know about Van Allen radiation belt, the no stars visible and I thought there was something about having to heat and cool the space suits for those extreme temperatures. But anyway, synchronicity at work! Who says there is no order to the universe? When the student is ready, the teacher appears.<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`<br />As to Ian Greehaigh here, I don't know what his problem is--too much ego. I grew up on Mark Lane's books and admire him tremendously. Ian has a problem with that because of some garbage he's read claiming Lane is CIA. As far as I am concerned, Lane could be an axe murderer and I would still recommend his books. Also, he wrote the screenplay for "Executive Action" back in 1973, the best film IMO on the JFK. Maybe you know this film co-wrote with Donald Freed who also wrote "Killing Time" on the OJ case. Great book which lays out the timeline.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-25675735493100473642014-05-08T20:24:02.066-07:002014-05-08T20:24:02.066-07:00"In the late 1970s, as a lawyer for Martin Lu..."In the late 1970s, as a lawyer for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassin, James Earl Ray........"<br /><br />(Hold it a second, Ian. Shouldn't that be "alleged assassin"? Isn't that a "begging the question" fallacy, Ian? If you are going to police this board for Dr. Fetzer, you should observe rules of logic.)<br /><br />"Lane appeared before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), a congressional probe into the Lane circumstances surrounding the separate assassinations of the civil rights leader and President Kennedy. HSCA said of Lane in its report, “Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane"<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-16974774322735862662014-05-08T20:11:36.945-07:002014-05-08T20:11:36.945-07:00Greenhaigh, you just repeated the McAdams blog. Y...Greenhaigh, you just repeated the McAdams blog. You are taking up space unnecessarily. <br /><br />Here's the new one you posted by the famous Mel Ayton.(?) You see how easy it is. There is no CIA tie in to the JFK assassination. It says so right here. And all these respected writers like Bugliosi confirm that. <br /><br />And please do your homework and tell us who Chip Berlet is. He's been around a long time. You should like him.<br /><br />Washington Decoded: Mark Lane: The Original Shyster <br />http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane<br />By Mel Ayton<br /><br />Outside of the wild and speculative books that attempt to tie in the CIA to the JFK assassination, there have been a number of __respected__ authors (including Bayard Stockton, Vincent Bugliosi, Gus Russo, Evan Thomas, Tim Weiner, Jefferson Morley, and Peter Grose) who have researched the allegation. <br /><br />Most discovered curious, but essentially ephemeral, Oswald connections to anti-Castro Cubans and their CIA handlers. <br /><br />Additionally, alleged CIA/Oswald connections were investigated by the Warren Commission, Rockefeller Commission, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities (Church Committee), as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). All these investigatory bodies found no credible evidence to support CIA involvement or culpability in the assassination.<br /><br /> Vincent Bugliosi, in his 1,600 page opus about the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History, concluded that conspiracy theorists have been unable to come up with “any evidence connecting the CIA to Oswald<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-60981377501313287352014-05-08T19:49:18.738-07:002014-05-08T19:49:18.738-07:00An article about Mark Lane and his problem with th...An article about Mark Lane and his problem with the truth:<br /><br />http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.html<br /><br />an excerpt:<br /><br />" Judging from website reports, Lane’s supporters are unaware of his previous shenanigans which stretch back to December 1963; yes, Lane was present at the creation. In 1966, Lane’s first book, Rush to Judgment, was persuasive with the mainstream media who were taken in by Lane’s lawyerly tricks and silver tongue as he debated supporters of the Warren Commission around the world. As Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler observed, Lane’s antics during these debates reminded him of “an old legend about frogs jumping from the mouth of a perfidious man every time he speaks . . . . If (Lane) talks for five minutes, it takes an hour to straighten out the record.” Even the counter-culture Rolling Stone magazine characterized Lane as a “huckster” and “hearse chaser.” Bugliosi describes Lane as having “infidelity to the truth” . . . a person who commits “outright fabrications” . . . “a fraud in his preachments about the known assassin” . . . and that he had “deliberately distorted the evidence” and repeatedly omitted “evidence damaging to his side.”<br /><br /> In Rush to Judgment, Lane abused the Warren Commission testimony of Jack Ruby, Oswald’s killer, and others like Charles Brehm, an alleged “grassy knoll” witness, who said Lane took his statements out of context and added a different meaning to them. Lane also omitted the statements of key witnesses like Johnny C Brewer, who observed a nervous Oswald avoid police patrols after the shooting of Officer Tippit.<br /><br /> But Lane has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts. In the early 1970s he used unreliable testimony to accuse American soldiers of multiple atrocities during the Vietnam War, according to New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan, a prominent critic of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Sheehan investigated the accounts in Lane’s book, Conversations with Americans Testimony from 32 Vietnam Veterans, and found most of them to be bogus.<br /><br /> In the late 1970s, as a lawyer for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassin, James Earl Ray, Lane appeared before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), a congressional probe into the Lane circumstances surrounding the separate assassinations of the civil rights leader and President Kennedy. HSCA said of Lane in its report, “Many of the allegations of conspiracy that the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane . . . . As has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane's assertions . . . . Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them . . . . . Lane's conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned.”"Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-36027725240463747932014-05-08T19:44:12.922-07:002014-05-08T19:44:12.922-07:00A couple of days ago you said there wasn't any...A couple of days ago you said there wasn't any gatekeeping back in the 60s.<br /><br />I think you're senile, or just not too smart.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-36638629739818169912014-05-08T19:42:24.108-07:002014-05-08T19:42:24.108-07:00Again, spurious, unrelated BS. This has absolutely...Again, spurious, unrelated BS. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lane or any of the things I wrote. Your constant harping on about McAdams just shows that you're unable to defend Lane so instead you're going of on an unrelated tangent.<br /><br />Why don't you at least try to counter some of the points I've made about Lane? No unrelated BS about McAdams or Garrison, why not address why Lane was present at the Jonestown Massacre but miraculously survived? Or how about the condemnation he received from the HSCA for telling blatant lies?Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-52935292303817117702014-05-08T19:38:13.373-07:002014-05-08T19:38:13.373-07:00This is an absolutely pathetic attempt at making a...This is an absolutely pathetic attempt at making an argument. I have never quoted McAdams or referenced any of his work.<br /><br />I have already explained Lane's gatekeeping re the CIA and JFK, but again, you're ignoring my explanations.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-21909101745115753612014-05-08T18:48:45.081-07:002014-05-08T18:48:45.081-07:00So, if McAdams didn't write this, who did? He...So, if McAdams didn't write this, who did? Here he is again rapping Jim Garrison.<br /><br />New Orleans/Garrison JFK Assassination Investigation <br />http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm<br /><br />NEW ORLEANS, AND THE GARRISON INVESTIGATION <br /><br />It was a three-ring circus. A flamboyant district attorney, with visions of conspiracy, proposing a series of theories, most of them bizarre. What he first called a "homosexual thrill killing" evolved, under the influence of the conspiracy buffs who flocked to New Orleans, into a massive CIA and federal government plot. When push came to shove in the courtroom, a jury took less than an hour to acquit Clay Shaw, the man Garrison put on trial. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-27710871790007770122014-05-08T18:30:54.247-07:002014-05-08T18:30:54.247-07:00Something new on the subject is at
www.banditobo...Something new on the subject is at <br /><br />www.banditobooks.com<br /><br />...has to do with why people cannot accept the truth about what happened then and is happening now...AC Weisbeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00899252153704916483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-44367577972396709232014-05-08T18:20:47.494-07:002014-05-08T18:20:47.494-07:00Greenhaigh, stop trying to distance yourself from ...Greenhaigh, stop trying to distance yourself from McAdams. This is his home site. He is a debunker of "conspiracists" in the JFK murder just like you.<br /><br />And I'd like to know how a CIA asset. such as you claim Lane to be, would be accusing the CIA of being the pivotal force in the JFK murder.<br /><br />JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Page <br />http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm<br /><br />The Kennedy<br />Assassination<br /><br />By John McAdams<br />© 1995-2013<br /><br />"This web site is dedicated to debunking the mass of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the murder of JFK. If you are believer in Oswald as a lone gunman, you are likely to enjoy this web site, since most of that misinformation and disinformation has come from conspiracists. But if you are a sophisticated conspiracist, you likely understand that the mass of silly nonsense in conspiracy books and documentaries does no service to the cause of truth in the assassination, and simply buries the "case for conspiracy" under layers of bunk." <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-84258764919045952962014-05-08T17:54:28.120-07:002014-05-08T17:54:28.120-07:00Ian Greeleigh said:
"Lane is a CIA operative...Ian Greeleigh said:<br /><br />"Lane is a CIA operative performing the role of controlled opposition and who's mission is to discredit the truth movement by formulating bogus conspiracy theories and concocting false evidence."<br /><br />"There are a collection of links to documents showing Lane's many transgressions against truth here:"<br /><br />http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />That's pretty funny, Ian. What "truth movement" and what "truth"? Lane was the first to write about and offer to defend Oswald whose civil rights were being abused. "Bogus conspiracy theories"? Really? He was asked by LHO's mother to represent Lee at the Warren Commission but was denied by the Commission. Lane's first book was "Rush to Judgement" and it was about government and media malfeasance in the case. Lane also interviewed the witnesses who gave testimony to the Warren Commission.<br /><br />That little twerp, Chip Berlet, is a gatekeeper for the Left alt. media BIGTIME. Hard as it is to believe you are not up on the facts in the JFK case, Ian, you should know who the real gatekeepers are. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-77659072907143997822014-05-08T17:50:09.950-07:002014-05-08T17:50:09.950-07:00Cut the bullshit, you're making an absolutely ...Cut the bullshit, you're making an absolutely ludicrous attempt at forming an argument. I posted a link to that website once, so don't lie and say I am posting it again. Besides, the page that you just posted the link to is NOT the same page that I linked to on that website.<br /><br />Two outright lies.<br /><br />Secondly, I explained the first time, and you have completely ignored the explanation - I linked to that website because it contained a lost of links to material about Mark Lane, none of which was written by mcAdams.<br /><br />I suggest you stop lying right now, because no-one is going to pay any attention to a liar and you seem to crave attention.<br /><br />Oh, and you got my name and Jim Fetzer's name wrong.<br /><br />Oh, and what shocking hypocrisy to accuse me of incompetence when you didn't even know that the throat wound to JFK had been discussed in exhaustive detail on Jim's show and didn't know that the magic bullet theory and JFK's back wound had similarly, been discussed in great detail.<br /><br />I think you should apologise for telling blatant, bald-faced lies.<br />Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-27349644447106586612014-05-08T17:24:12.347-07:002014-05-08T17:24:12.347-07:00http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm
Prouty and t...http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm<br />Prouty and the Far Right<br /><br />L. Fletcher Prouty -- All Purpose Kennedy Assassination Expert? Or Crackpot<br /><br />"An essay, written from a leftist perspective by __Chip Berlet__ deals with the ties between Prouty (and, incidentally, Mark Lane) and the extreme right-wing paranoid Liberty Lobby. Nothing here shows Prouty to have been a Nazi or an anti-Semite, but shouldn't he have shown better judgment in picking his associates?" <br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````<br />Ian Greenleigh, why are you posting this 'Oswald as lone assassin' web page again?<br /><br />You are knocking Fletcher Prouty in the piece above, and showing your ignorance for believing anything written by Chip Berlet. Are you kidding us again, Ian?<br /><br />This site is full of insults not only to Mark Lane but to all the major researchers and sources used by Jim Fetcher.<br />i've just begun checking, and guess what. I'm really bored with your incompetence and lack of background in the JFK case. I suggest you take all of these paragraphs in this piece and debunk them.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-83151901888942687672014-05-07T14:59:43.790-07:002014-05-07T14:59:43.790-07:00And what is your point in reposting this?And what is your point in reposting this?Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-32812194268791549612014-05-07T14:29:31.395-07:002014-05-07T14:29:31.395-07:00Is Mark Lane a Dangerous Man Who Can't be Trus...Is Mark Lane a Dangerous Man Who Can't be Trusted?<br /><br />Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer's Brief, by Mark Lane, National Guardian, 12/19/63 <br />http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html<br /><br /><br />Lane’s defense brief for Oswald <br />In an analysis of the civil liberties aspects of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the American Civil Liberties Union said the “public interest” would be served if the commission named by President Johnson were to make “a thorough examination of the treatment accorded Oswald, including his right to counsel, the nature of the interrogation, his physical security while under arrest, and the effect of pretrial publicity on Oswald’s right to a fair trial.” <br /><br />In the public interest the GUARDIAN has devoted one-half of its issue this week to a lawyer’s brief in the Oswald case which has been sent by the author to Justice Earl Warren as head of the fact-finding commission inquiring into the circumstances of the assassination of President Kennedy. The author is Mark Lane, a well known New York defense attorney, who has represented almost all the civil rights demonstrators arrested in New York. He has also served as defense counsel in a number of murder cases involving young persons. <br /><br />In 1959, he helped organize the Reform Democrats in New York, an insurgent movement within the Democratic Party, was the first candidate of the movement to be nominated to the New York State Legislature and was elected in 1960. <br /><br />In his letter to Justice Warren accompanying the brief, Lane urged that defense counsel be named for Oswald so that all aspects of the case might be vigorously pursued, particularly since Oswald was denied a trial during his lifetime. It is an ironic note, as the ACLU statement said, that “if Oswald had lived to stand trial and were convicted, the courts would very likely have reversed the conviction because of the prejudicial pretrial publicity.” <br /><br />The GUARDIAN’S publication of Lane’s brief presumes only one thing: a man’s innocence, under U.S. law, unless or until proved guilty. It is the right of any accused, whether his name is Oswald, Ruby, or Byron de la Beckwith, the man charged with the murder of Medgar Evers in Mississippi. A presumption of innocence is the rock upon which American jurisprudence rests. Surely it ought to apply in the “crime of the century” as in the meanest back-alley felony. <br /><br />We ask all our readers to study this document, show it to as many persons as you can (extra copies are available on request) and send us your comment. Any information or analysis based on fact that can assist the Warren Commission is in the public interest—an interest which demands that everything possible be done to establish the facts in this case. <br />—THE GUARDIAN <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-1933515757488556702014-05-07T14:06:31.514-07:002014-05-07T14:06:31.514-07:00Ian GreenhalghApril 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM wrote;
T...Ian GreenhalghApril 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM wrote;<br /><br />There's no reason to trust the Zionist Jew Mark Lane either as he's also a villain and CIA operative. Lane worked for US Army intelligence in Germany in 1945-47, which became the CIA. He was the lawyer for Jim Jones and was present in Jonestown but mysteriously survived the massacre. He ran the Liberty Lobby and AFP which functioned as controlled opposition for the CIA; he lied to the HSCA and was chastised by them for it; he produced bogus atrocity accounts about the Vietnam War. <br /><br />Lane is a CIA operative performing the role of controlled opposition and who's mission is to discredit the truth movement by formulating bogus conspiracy theories and concocting false evidence.<br /><br />There are a collection of links to documents showing Lane's many transgressions against truth here:<br /><br />http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18417239844950950071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-60823942651107309792014-05-07T11:09:36.768-07:002014-05-07T11:09:36.768-07:00Yes Chris, that was what she said. I found that in...Yes Chris, that was what she said. I found that incredible, and as I said, she can't have actually listened to Jim's shows about JFK because that throat wound has been covered so many times in such detail.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-86469254687595710922014-05-07T09:57:54.537-07:002014-05-07T09:57:54.537-07:00Im not sure either but Jim has him pegged as Jack ...Im not sure either but Jim has him pegged as Jack Lawrence.<br /><br />w.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/six-jfk-shooters-three-tied-to-cia-named-oswald-not-among-them/.<br /><br />Ms 'I rattle on about nothing much' I believe was saying that no research has been done on the the throat wound. If I correctly interpreted her rattling <br /><br />Wow, just wow.<br /><br />This place has some mighty peculiar folk that post some mighty peculiar stuff Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09313556132326090944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-47323205375753520242014-05-07T03:28:40.817-07:002014-05-07T03:28:40.817-07:00Yeah, I'm not perfect but who is?
I just thin...Yeah, I'm not perfect but who is?<br /><br />I just think there is far too much evidence for Lane being a CIA operator to discount, and I think Gordon Duff was correct - most of the JFK researchers are disinfo. <br /><br />Just some bullet points on Lane:<br /><br />* Zionist Jew (his father's surname was Levin)<br /><br />* Began his career in US Army Intelligence in the 1940s, this later became the CIA<br /><br />* Mis-used witness testimony in the JFK case to distort the meaning<br /><br />* Was condemned by the HSCA for telling outright lies about the JFK and MLK cases<br /><br />* Wrote a book about US attrocities in Vietnam that was full of bogus claims<br /><br />* Was the lawyer for Jim Jones and most likely, one of his CIA handlers<br /><br />* Was present at the Jonestown Massacre but miraculously survived<br /><br />* Became owner of Carto's AFP after the unsuccessful legal trial against the Zionist ADL<br /><br />* Lane's AFP in recent times has been exposed as a disinfo operation, Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper most prominent as disinfo agents<br /><br />I think Lane is an operator who is used to disrupt important cases such as JFK, MLK etc. In much the same vein as Ken Feinberg who was the Jewish lawyer in charge of compensation payouts for 9-11 and half a dozen other false flags of recent years.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-9878233763999806082014-05-07T02:57:16.763-07:002014-05-07T02:57:16.763-07:00I agree Clare, neither is a flawless work but both...I agree Clare, neither is a flawless work but both serve a purpose - to provoke thought. I bet Stone would love to make a new film that corrected the flaws of the earlier one, I actually have faith that Stone is on the level and does want to get the truth (as far as that is discernible) out to a wider audience.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-31239345383439779742014-05-06T23:21:25.970-07:002014-05-06T23:21:25.970-07:00This is interesting. Of course, Lane's connect...This is interesting. Of course, Lane's connections are problematic, but he seems to be very well meaning, maybe controlled in some ways unbeknownst to himself.<br /><br />On the other hand, Lane's work is marvellous, on many fronts.<br /><br />And no, Ian is no gatekeeper, Joan, though his thoughts have gates at times and he can be as infantile as his words say others are.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-80221102817117989642014-05-06T23:18:59.513-07:002014-05-06T23:18:59.513-07:00It's all damaging: there were plenty of culpri...It's all damaging: there were plenty of culprits and the JFK Stone and Executive Action Lane films both get the types of thinking across of perpetrators and how to face the events from the conspiracy case position, rather than how non-conspiracy thinkers would. However, there are flaws and missing pieces in both.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.com