alternative sourcing given that this is an article about mark lane why don't we look for reliable secondary sources that discuss lane and his views of the warren commission for example page to in conspiracy theory in film television and politics by gordon b arnold not the gordon arnold in earl golz's report by the way appears to present a neutrally worded discussion stating what lane perceived the warren commission had done while this source is not a history teacher he is an academic who has been published in reliable sources and most importantly he actually attributes lane's views to lane