Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
30 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Witness Supports Mark Lane's Plausible Denial, July 11, 2000
By A Customer
I was shattered by the assassination of President Kennedy and watched the events on t.v. I was a student at U.C.L.A. I recall so often having been full of pride for my country because of the words he spoke at a press conference which I heard on the car radio as I drove to the university.Friday, November 22, 1963. I remained in front of the t.v. for endless hours. Certainly never, in my imagination, did it occur that I would eventually be involved in the investigation of the murder of the President. While I was in college, and because of my respect for President Kennedy, I wrote him a letter and received an aides' letter back. It remained framed above my desk for years. I got a lot of ribbing from my roommates. I transferred to UCLA. I continued to be proud of my country and my President. And then, he was murdered. I recall when I drove to Santa Barbara to hear Mark Lane speak about his book, Rush To Judgment. I spent time with Mark Lane and learned about New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison. And when Mark introduced me to him, I offered my services at no cost, as a specialist in photography, never realizing how important that promise might become. Mark Lane's commitment to the truth and to bringing the assassins to justice for the murder of John Kennedy never wavered and I decided to work for Garrison and with Lane nomatter what. I was motivated by my respect for what John Kennedy meant to me as a President. I also respected Lane and Garrison for their absolute, clear and selfless dedication to the task of prosecuting the assassins of President Kennedy. Mark Lane had been the friend of President Kennedy and his campaign manager for the presidential campaign in in New York. Lane's analysis of the assassination in his first book, and later in PLAUSIBLE DENIAL, demonstrated his unique mind as an attorney, that of someone who would eventually become one of our nation's history's greatest advocates. Lane's world famous book, Rush To Judgment, became the number one best seller in America and the world in the first year of its publication. Though his book was clearly a classic cornerstone of history, the U.S. publishers initially turned it down. Lane eventually had to go to a British publishing company to get it published, though almost all of the American publishers initially wanted it and even some of them even "optioned" it, though they unexpectedly later rejected it after a visit from the FBI agents answsering to Hoover. The truth about the facts of the assassination of President Kennedy survives today because of one man, Mark Lane, who lived by the words of Kennedy when he said that one man could make a difference. I had no idea that the FBI, the CIA, and law enforcement in New Orleans and Louisiana, were so commited to stopping those of us who were simimlarly dedicated to exposing the truth about the political assassination of president Kennedy. Eventually, we all endured a life changing events as a result of our commitments. As of this writing, I have elected not to write a book about this subject. However, I encourage you to read Mark Lane's historic works on the subject if you want to know the truth. In fact, government agencies have spent millions of dollars to publish things on the Internet to respond to Mark Lane's works. You would be shocked at how much the government has used of your tax dollars to establish a "lasting denial" of Lane's books on the subject. Nothing is more appropriate than the quote of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., than the phrase that, "the truth crushed to earth shall rise again." In the case of the assassination of our President, John Kennedy, the works in writing of the life dedicated by Mark Lane to that truth about the assassination of John Kennedy will ultimately prevail. As one person, who has participated in the investigation, first hand, I urge you to read PLAUSIBLE DENIAL. And I hope that history will soon record the truth about who really killed our dear President. I know that I will continue to work on getting the history books corrected from what they have published now. I assure you that what your children read regarding the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy, is neither true nor what he would want your children to read in terms of what he stood for as a man, as a senator, as a president, or as a fallen leader. --SSJ
|
|
|
23 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Is What's True In A Court Of Law *Really* True?, July 27, 2001
The truth of what really happened re: the murder of J.F.K. is remarkably complex. Mark Lane tries to simplify it somewhat in this book, with some likely and inevitable distortions. This is, however, one of the more creditable examinations of the assassination, and it's one you *should* read, if you're interested in the subject. The other reviewers have given good descriptions of the basic contents. There are also a couple of truly fascinating items, which I'll point out below.One must always remember, I think, that all these events took place *before* the Freedom of Information Act. If, at times, the characters involved seem utterly stupid in thinking no one would ever find out what they did...well, in those days, the idea that anyone ever *would* find out was beyond imagination. History has also shown that the CIA has made more than a few unlikely alliances in pursuing their "worthy" goals. In this case, the goal was anti-Castro, and an alliance with organized crime seems not only a possibly, but rather likely...don't you think? It's happened since, too. So, when Mark Lane asks, "Was the CIA involved in the assassination of JFK?"...I have to ask in reply, "Why is that such a far-fetched idea?" You might want to take a look at Don DeLillo's LIBRA for a reasonable depiction of just how the CIA might have been involved, and why. One of the more interesting bits in this book is Lane's record of the deposition of Castro's girlfriend at the time, Marita Lorenz. She describes an interesting senario of an aborted assassination "attempt" in Miami, and then an all-night drive by several cars to Dallas, where the historical events took place. Again, these events are eerily repeated in DeLillo's LIBRA (without Lorenz, and minus one car). The idea was, it is alleged, that the original idea was to have a *failed* assassination attempt, hoping to turn the country against Cuba, and to overthrow Castro. If this is in any way accurate, boy did that plan go wrong! Most fascinating of all, Lane includes some information about the CIA's Operation Zapata (AKA The Bay Of Pigs). Lane presents some fascinating evidence that former president George Bush was, in fact, *the* operative in charge of that mission (something the CIA has always denied officially). Consider this, says Lane: Bush was involved in Zapata Petroleum in Texas, and Zapata Off Shore Co. (he was the CEO from 1956 to 1964). And the names of the two boats the CIA used? "Barbara" and "Houston." What we see in all of this is how intensely focused everything was on Cuba back then. The USA wanted communism out. American business and organized crime wanted their money and property back. It seems likely to me that they were all willing to do most anything and everything to reach that goal. But, were they willing to go so far as this (and other books) suggest? I'm sure each of us will have our own opinion on that.
|
|
|
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Does Lane know what he's talking about ????????, August 30, 2006
Witness the two articles below, one written about six weeks before the assassination:
The New York Times
October 3, 1963 p. 34
The Intra-Administration
War in Vietnam
By Arthur Krock
... One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, "according to a high United States source here, twice the C.I.A. flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge . . . [and] in one instance frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with it." Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official . . . who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy . . . are the following:
The C.I.A.'s growth was "likened to a malignancy" which the "very high official was not sure even the White House could control . . . any longer." "If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon." The agency "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."
... The C.I.A. may be guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate will not, openly defend its record in Vietnam, or defend it by the same confidential press "briefings" employed by its critics, the public is not in a position to judge. Nor is this department, which sought and failed to get even the outlines of the agency's case in rebuttal. But Mr. Kennedy will have to make a judgment if the spectacle of war within the Executive branch is to be ended and the effective functioning of the C.I.A. preserved. And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it public, as well as the appraisal of fault on which it is based.
______________________________________________________________
... and one written exactly four weeks after the assassination by former President Harry S. Truman, no less:
The Washington Post
December 22, 1963 - page A11
Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role To Intelligence
By Harry S Truman
INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 -- I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency--CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets ...
... But their (C.I.A.'s) collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
... For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations ... But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field--and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.
______________________________________________________________
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Jim Marrs
by Mark Lane
by Jim Garrison
See all 29 books citing this book
