The Early Mark Lane

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

Unfortunately, on all sides of the JFKA debates, there are researchers and other characters with shortcomings, and intellectual dishonesty.

Mark Lane cut some corners, and was also a dedicated leftie. In many, many people seeking public office, there seems to be some sort of compulsion to publicity and the limelight, rather than a platform of principled beliefs.

In addition, most researchers have an ideology that underlines their work. The ideology drives the agenda, and the agenda write the narrative.

Unfortunately, we earnest JFKA researchers have to cut through the chaff.

What parts of the Mark Lane narrative of the JFKA hold water?

[Tom Graves]

MTG--

Unfortunately, on all sides of the JFKA debates, there are researchers and other characters with shortcomings, and intellectual dishonesty.

Mark Lane cut some corners, and was also a dedicated leftie. In many, many people seeking public office, there seems to be some sort of compulsion to publicity and the limelight, rather than a platform of principled beliefs.

In addition, most researchers have an ideology that underlines their work. The ideology drives the agenda, and the agenda write the narrative.

Unfortunately, we earnest JFKA researchers have to cut through the chaff.

What parts of the Mark Lane narrative of the JFKA hold water?

What makes you think any part of Mark "KGB" Lane's narrative "holds water"?

[Benjamin Cole]

TG-

Towering like the Colossus of Rhodes, you have summoned me forth on a small platform at your feet!

Who can stand up to your infinite and omniscient Weltanschauung?

I don't have Lane's works at my fingertips now. He was a biased leftie, for sure. It would not surprise me if KGB money made its way into his hands (for sure into Oliver Stone's).

Nevertheless, Lane did a good interview with Sam Holland, in the old b/w "Rush to Judgement" film he made.

Holland is very credible in his statement he heard a shot, or shots from the GK, and saw a smoke in that area. The GK smoke-and-bang show. I believe there was a GK smoke-and-bang show, and a DPD'er and a D Sheriff encountered a man on the GK who flashed Secret Service credentials.

The floor is yours. Light responses from me through the end of the month.

Like Zeus, you can throw SBT thunderbolts down on the scattering and frightened JFKA CT forces!

[Tom Graves]

Lane did a good interview with Sam Holland, in the old b/w "Rush to Judgement" film he made. Holland is very credible in his statement he heard a shot, or shots from the GK, and saw a smoke in that area. The GK smoke-and-bang show.

My search terms : "sam holland" "mark lane" and "jfk"

GOOGLE AI: Sam Holland was a key eyewitness in the John F. Kennedy assassination who reported hearing shots and seeing smoke from the grassy knoll area, contradicting the official "lone gunman" theory. Attorney Mark Lane was a prominent early assassination conspiracy theorist who interviewed Holland and featured his testimony in his work, most notably in the book and film Rush to Judgment.

Sam Holland's Testimony

Holland was a railroad supervisor who was standing on the railroad bridge overlooking Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. Along with several other workers, he provided the following observations:

Multiple Shots/Location: Holland maintained there were four shots fired, the third sounding quieter than the others, suggesting different weapons were used.

Grassy Knoll Smoke: He reported seeing a puff of white smoke rising from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, a location that would suggest a shooter was present there, rather than from the Texas School Book Depository where Lee Harvey Oswald was positioned.

Witness Credibility: Holland's testimony was considered credible by many and challenged the Warren Commission's findings that all shots came from the rear.

Mark Lane's Advocacy

Mark Lane, a lawyer and author, became a leading critic of the Warren Commission, arguing that they ignored or coerced witness statements that did not fit the single-shooter narrative.

Interviews: Lane interviewed Holland and other witnesses, like Lee Bowers, who also reported unusual activity near the grassy knoll.

Rush to Judgment: His 1966 book, Rush to Judgment, which was later made into a documentary film, meticulously detailed these alternative accounts and inconsistencies in the official investigation. Lane successfully highlighted witness reports like Holland's to argue for the possibility of a conspiracy and a second gunman.

The association between Sam Holland and Mark Lane is a cornerstone of the early critical examination of the JFK assassination, focusing on the evidence of shots fired from the grassy knoll.

. . . . . . .

ME: Have there been any criticisms of Lane's interview of Holland?

GOOGLE AI: Yes, Mark Lane's work, including his use of witness testimony like Sam Holland's, has faced significant criticism from those who support the official Warren Commission findings. Critics generally argue that Lane was a biased and unscrupulous opportunist who manipulated evidence to support a predetermined conspiracy theory.

Specific criticisms of Lane's handling of Holland's testimony and the broader evidence include:

Selective Evidence: Critics claim that Lane systematically and deliberately suppressed facts and details that did not support his case for a conspiracy. He focused heavily on the parts of Holland's testimony that mentioned smoke from the grassy knoll and four shots, while potentially ignoring other details or statements that were less consistent with his theory.

Leading Questions: Lane was a defense attorney, and some argue he used "defense lawyer tactics" when writing his book and conducting interviews, which may have involved leading witnesses or quoting material out of context.

Lack of Objectivity: His book Rush to Judgment was structured as a point-by-point rebuttal of the Warren Report, and critics saw it as wildly speculative, biased, and indiscriminate. The main argument against his methods is that he started with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy and then sought evidence to prove it, rather than conducting an objective investigation.

Inconsistencies/Reliability Challenges: While Holland consistently reported smoke and multiple shots, other critics have pointed out the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony in high-stress situations. The Warren Commission itself was accused of ignoring Holland's testimony because it didn't fit their narrative, not necessarily because Holland was lying, but because they prioritized evidence that supported the lone gunman theory.

Ultimately, the criticisms center on Lane's perceived agenda-driven approach, suggesting that he may have massaged Holland's account, along with those of other witnesses, to fit his pre-existing narrative of a government cover-up.

ME: What inconsistencies, if any, are alleged in Mark Lane's use of Sam Holland's testimony?

GOOGLE AI: Critics allege that Mark Lane's use of Sam Holland's testimony was a prime example of his selective and agenda-driven approach to evidence, where he highlighted details supporting a conspiracy while downplaying or omitting potentially contradictory information.
The alleged inconsistencies and biases in Lane's use of the testimony include:

Selective Focus: Lane emphasized Holland's claims of seeing a "puff of white smoke" from the grassy knoll and hearing four shots (suggesting multiple weapons/locations), as these directly contradicted the Warren Commission's "lone gunman, three shots from the rear" theory. Critics argue he gave these specific details undue prominence without sufficiently exploring potential alternative explanations for an eyewitness's perception in a high-stress environment.

Quoting Out of Context: Some critics, and the Warren Commission itself when cross-examining Lane on other witness testimonies, accused him of quoting material out of context to fit his narrative. While there is no explicit record of Holland's specific quotes being altered, the general accusation against Lane's methods suggests he may have "massaged the evidence" to make Holland's account appear more definitive and less ambiguous than it was.

Ignoring Context: Lane is accused of downplaying the fact that while Holland and other witnesses reported shots from the knoll, other aspects of their original statements or subsequent interviews might not have been perfectly consistent or were open to different interpretations. He presented Holland's account as clear-cut proof of a second shooter, while more critical analyses might consider the overall reliability of various witness accounts.

Partisan Presentation: Lane's work, including his film Rush to Judgment, was designed as an adversarial argument against the official report. Critics argue that his presentation of Holland's testimony was a lawyer's argument designed to persuade a "jury" of the public, rather than an objective analysis of all available evidence and its nuances.

Essentially, the criticism is not necessarily that Holland was lying, but that Lane presented Holland's account as an infallible truth while ignoring the complex, sometimes conflicting, nature of eyewitness reports in general.

I believe there was a Grassy Knoll smoke-and-bang show, and a DPD'er and a Deputy Sheriff encountered a man on the Grassy Knoll who flashed Secret Service credentials.

According to JFKA CT Anthony Summers, Dallas Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith told him that the "Secret Service" guy had Secret Service identification and dirty fingernails "like an auto mechanic."

Just curious: Has Anthony Summers been known to always tell the truth regarding what JFKA witnesses told him?

[Benjamin Cole]

That's a pretty feeble dismissal of Holland's observations.

Mark Lane was what he was, and bent the truth to his agenda. The far leftie, and if CPUSA or KGB money was involved...who knows?

Holland told Holland's version of the truth, and it served Lane's purposes. Holland is filmed, and Holland never said, "I was quoted out of context," etc.

Others, such as Amos Euins, also reported hearing four shots.

Seems to me there was a GK smoke-and-bang show. Lane may right on that score.

[Tom Graves]

Others [in addition to Sam Holland], such as Amos Euins, also reported hearing four shots.

ME: How many witnesses reported the number of gun shots they heard during the JFK assassination, and how many of them said they heard four shots?

GROK: In the Warren Commission investigation and subsequent analyses (including the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations, HSCA), a large number of witnesses in Dealey Plaza reported hearing gunshots. The exact total varies slightly depending on how strictly one defines "witness who specified a number of shots," but the most commonly cited and carefully compiled figures come from the Warren Commission’s own evidence and later studies.

Key figures from reliable sources:

Warren Commission (1964) 

Approximately 200 witnesses gave statements about hearing shots.

Of those who specified an exact number:

The overwhelming majority (around 85–90%) said 3 shots. 

A small minority said 2 shots, 4 shots, or more.

Most detailed breakdown (commonly accepted)

A thorough study of earwitness testimony (used by both the Warren Commission and later researchers, notably by researcher Larry Sniegosaw and cited in HSCA hearings) analyzed 178 witnesses who gave a specific number of shots:

2 shots
23
~13%

3 shots
132
~74%

4 shots
17
~9.5%

5 or more shots
6
~3.4%

Total
178
100%

17 witnesses explicitly reported hearing 4 shots.

House Select Committee on Assassinations (1978–1979)

The HSCA acoustics team initially suggested evidence of a possible fourth shot (from the grassy knoll), which brought renewed attention to witnesses who heard four or more shots. Even so, the HSCA acknowledged that the clear majority of earwitnesses still reported only three shots. The 17 witnesses who said four shots were among those re-examined, but the committee ultimately did not rely primarily on earwitness counts.

Summary

Total witnesses who specified a number of shots: ≈ 178–200 (depending on source). 

Number who reported hearing exactly four shots: 17.

So, the answer is: 17 witnesses reported hearing four shots. This is the figure most consistently cited in both official investigations and serious subsequent research.

[Michael T. Griffith]

MTG--

Unfortunately, on all sides of the JFKA debates, there are researchers and other characters with shortcomings, and intellectual dishonesty.

Mark Lane cut some corners, and was also a dedicated leftie. In many, many people seeking public office, there seems to be some sort of compulsion to publicity and the limelight, rather than a platform of principled beliefs.

In addition, most researchers have an ideology that underlines their work. The ideology drives the agenda, and the agenda write the narrative.

Unfortunately, we earnest JFKA researchers have to cut through the chaff.

What parts of the Mark Lane narrative of the JFKA hold water?

It might seem odd, but Lane's early JFKA research--i.e., Rush to Judgment--is actually pretty good. Then again, Lane was fully aware that any challenge to the WC would be carefully scrutinized by the commission's defenders, which at the time included most journalists and academics. I would give Rush to Judgment a B overall.

In contrast, Lane's 2012 book Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK contains a lot of erroneous research mixed with some valid research. The parts of the book that are valid are worthwhile and important, but those parts are mixed in with a great deal of dubious material.

When it came to the Vietnam War, Lane was a shameful mouthpiece for Soviet and North Vietnamese propaganda. Like most leftists who berated our noble war effort in Vietnam, he had nothing to say when the North Vietnamese proceeded to execute over 60,000 South Vietnamese and sent 800,000 others to harsh concentration camps after Hanoi won the war (thanks to the betrayal of South Vietnam by the anti-war majority in Congress).

[Royell Storing]

  What sets Holland apart from other eyewitnesses is his elevated viewing position. Holland's "elevated" view is similar to the elevated view of Lee Bowers from inside the 2 story tall railroad tower. BOTH of these eyewitnesses with an elevated view reported seeing a motorcycle rolling UP the Knoll. There's a big difference between seeing/hearing at ground level vs seeing/hearing when looking DOWNWARD from an elevated position. A "high ground" position is always preferable to "ground level", whether it be a military conflict or seats on the 50 yard line.