Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cory Santos

Angleton and Mark Lane experts, your thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Not an exert on either by any means though I do have Plausible Denial and Last Word but this is horse crap.  Lane was not sponsored in that day and time by the USSR.  He was searching for the Truth from day one.  He tried to defend Oswald's innocence against the Warren Omission, They refused and Omitted his efforts.  He was surveilled and persecuted by his own government for it.  Yet he persevered.  

http://www.libertylobby.org/articles/2000/20000207cia.html

If you read deep enough and note, Helms and Angleton signed off on "The memo". 

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, and the idea is this: Lane had doubts about the WC, the Russians had doubts about the WC.

So what if Lane shared his ideas on it with the Russians.

I mean so did Jackie and RFK.

God, now watch what Max Holland does with this crap.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "trusted relationship" mean, anyways?

There is nothing in that article to indicate Lane was knowingly working with or talking to the KGB. If anything, it suggests the Russians were keeping their eye on Lane. This only makes sense, seeing as Lane was at the forefront of a movement seen as a direct threat to the Johnson Administration and CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Mark's Last Word he points to the CIA's somewhat successful attempts to stifle the publication of his first books and that he was only able to get initial publications in Russia. For some reason, but I don't remember the details.

For what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was not Russia but England, and then when it did well, they sold the American rights.

Russia, England...

You say "tomato," I say "tomato..."

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More character assassination against Mark Lane, a great American and true patriot. And notice how the following quote is slipped into the piece as if to cast doubt on JFK himself: "Shamrock further stated that the Soviets mourned President Kennedy’s death, a situation which Shamrock considered very unique inasmuch as the person being mourned was the leader of another country.” This article is another great example of how the MSM work diligently to twist things out of proportion (or simply put - to disinform). One way they do this is to purposely fail to provide proper context. As we all know, shortly after Kennedy was elected, Dulles and the Joint Chiefs were urging JFK to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR. During the Missile Crisis, the Joint Chiefs demanded a nuclear strike against Cuba that would have triggered a nuclear Armageddon.  It was only because JFK and Khrushchev each worked together to avoid the crisis that we're here today. (During the Missile Crisis, Khrushchev even told Andrei Gromyko: “We have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him. Yes, help. We now have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.”) If the Kennedy brothers had not kept the right-wing fanatics in the government at bay, apocalypse would have been the result. Nobody knew this better than Khrushchev, who had his own right-wing war hawks to deal with. Of course he mourned JFK's loss! Norman Cousins quotes Khrushchev as saying: "The Chinese say I was scared. Of course I was scared. It would have been insane not to have been scared. I was frightened about what could happen to my country – or your country and all the other countries that would have been devastated by a nuclear war. If being frightened meant that I helped avert such insanity then I’m glad I was frightened. One of the problems in the world today is that not enough people are sufficiently frightened by the danger of nuclear war." Our media continues to portray Khrushchev as a raving maniac while the real maniacs were the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Which is why Kennedy had to open a secret channel of communication with him during the crisis. I suppose that Mark Lane should be honored that the powers-that-be are still so afraid of the truth he unearthed. No wonder Khrushchev's son Sergei told author Jim Douglass "I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world."

Edited by Rob Couteau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, spot on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 6:27 PM, Cory Santos said:

This tactic was used against Mark Lane right from the start in order to discredit him.  If nothing else, it shows how big a threat Lane was to the WCR apologists...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, is that true Pamela.

One of the extraordinary things about the new files is how many of them refer to Lane.  Especially the FBI.

But further, the WC really feared Lane and they asked that the FBI actually step up their coverage of him.  Incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another rather ridiculous current thread brings up Mary Moorman and in turn Jean Hill.  I pulled the book Last Dissenting Witness as a result.  Mark Lane's brief phone interview of Jean Hill lit a fire.  They both got burned.  She told him the guy she saw running across the front of the TSBD towards the grassy knoll looked like the guy she saw kill Oswald on TV and in the papers.  He put it in Rush To Judgement but before that had noted it in his petition to represent Oswald on 3/7/64 before the Warren Omission.  Then Arlen Specter took her testimony, one on one with a public stenographer he paused when needed and badgered the hell out of her falsifying her statements.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 6:14 PM, Rob Couteau said:

More character assassination against Mark Lane, a great American and true patriot. And notice how the following quote is slipped into the piece as if to cast doubt on JFK himself: "Shamrock further stated that the Soviets mourned President Kennedy’s death, a situation which Shamrock considered very unique inasmuch as the person being mourned was the leader of another country.” This article is another great example of how the MSM work diligently to twist things out of proportion (or simply put - to disinform). One way they do this is to purposely fail to provide proper context. As we all know, shortly after Kennedy was elected, Dulles and the Joint Chiefs were urging JFK to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR. During the Missile Crisis, the Joint Chiefs demanded a nuclear strike against Cuba that would have triggered a nuclear Armageddon.  It was only because JFK and Khrushchev each worked together to avoid the crisis that we're here today. (During the Missile Crisis, Khrushchev even told Andrei Gromyko: “We have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him. Yes, help. We now have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.”) If the Kennedy brothers had not kept the right-wing fanatics in the government at bay, apocalypse would have been the result. Nobody knew this better than Khrushchev, who had his own right-wing war hawks to deal with. Of course he mourned JFK's loss!

 

Norman Cousins quotes Khrushchev as saying: "The Chinese say I was scared.

 

Of course I was scared. It would have been insane not to have been scared. I was frightened about what could happen to my country – or your country and all the other countries that would have been devastated by a nuclear war. If being frightened meant that I helped avert such insanity then I’m glad I was frightened. One of the problems in the world today is that not enough people are sufficiently frightened by the danger of nuclear war." Our media continues to portray Khrushchev as a raving maniac while the real maniacs were the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Which is why Kennedy had to open a secret channel of communication with him during the crisis. I suppose that Mark Lane should be honored that the powers-that-be are still so afraid of the truth he unearthed. No wonder Khrushchev's son Sergei told author Jim Douglass "I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world."

There is a well respected American writer/historian whose primary focus was Khrushchev and Russia during and after he was relieved from power. I watched an interview of him on TV not long ago and his presentation was incredibly insightful and his views on Khrushchev mirrored Rob's summary above. Although it went much deeper in context. I wish I could remember his name.

Anyone here knowledgeable about the most respected Russia political historians of the Khrushchev era?

When Khrushchev relates that the Chinese derogatorialy thought he "was scared" during the Cuban missile crisis, I assume he is inferring that they ( the Chinese communist leadership ) perhaps would not have negotiated a stand-off peace with JFK and been inclined to risk all-out war with the U.S..

Regardless if 10's of millions of innocent people ( including their own ) would have died in just the first two weeks of such and the world would have descended into an insanity of massive mindless battle with unfathomable injury, damage and chaos to most all the industrialized countries on Earth that we might not have even been able to recover from. 

Thank goodness it was Khrushchev and Kennedy handling this crisis at that time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×