Jump to content
The Education Forum
Thomas Graves

Why Does the "Mitrokhin Archive" Claim KGB Paid Mark Lane $6000 in Today's Money to Debunk The Warren Report?

Recommended Posts

 

Why does the so-called Mitrokhin Archive say the dean of JFK assassination researchers, Mark Lane (RIP), was paid by the KGB to debunk the Warren Commission Report?

1)  Because it's "true," and "goes to show" that back in the 1960s, progressive-minded humanists in the Kremlin were seriously interested in seeing that Oswald be exonerated, the Far Right and the CIA be implicated, and that "justice be done" in the good ol' U.S.A.

2)  Because The Mitrokhin Archive was a vicious and elaborate CIA fabrication created in order to cast aspersions on Left-leaning JFK Assassination researchers.

3)   Because TMA was a clever KGB/FSB strategic deception operation full of minor revelations and gross misinformation, calculated to sow confusion and dissention among JFK, MLK, and RFK Assassination researchers.

From John Simkin's Spartacus Blog, "The KGB and Martin Luther King":

"[The Mitrokhin Archive says that the] KGB also arranged for Mark Lane to receive $1,500 to help his research. However, the document makes it clear that Lane was not told the source of the money. The same person arranged for Lane to receive $500 to help pay for a trip in Europe in 1964. KGB agent, Genrikh Borovik, was also assigned to help Lane with his research for Rush to Judgement(1965)."

 

--  Tommy  :sun

PS  I say the answer to the question is number 3). 

What say you?

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assumption piled upon assumption.

Where to begin?

If one is to traffic Mitrokhin Archive material, it would be helpful to know how much due diligence it was subjected to before being disseminated in the west.

Can we trust the KGB documents at face value?  The US intelligence community has never done so before, but we are assured by Tommy it is unnecessary to consider.  It was said, and/or written, by somebody with KGB credentials, so it must be true.  Just like everything on the internet.

Can we trust that Mitrokhin Archive material is not being selectively quoted for a possible third party purpose by those who disseminated the material?    Or that it hasn’t been materially altered by western intelligence?  Let’s recall that before it was received by CIA, the Mitrokhin Archive material was given to the UK’s MI-6.  Can we be certain that what Tommy quotes from is actually true?

No we cannot.  The wholly disreputable CIA mouthpiece Max Holland tried to make much of this nothingburger, which is only entirely predictable given the CIA’s long-standing fear of and animus toward Mark Lane.  And the Agency’s long-term financial subsidy of Max Holland.

And, or course, rather than allow Mark Lane a chance to rebut the allegations, Tommy merely accepts the KGB material as genuine and then parrots the CIA line, not unlike Max Holland, as it transpires.  Apparently Tommy can find what he wants to find on the Sparticus site, but cannot locate on the self-same website what he wishes others not to read or know.  

(One may wish to keep Tommy’s baseless but entirely partisan and highly selective propaganda viewpoint in mind as one reads Tommy defending the likes of James Jesus Angleton, or when he floats imaginary scenarios wherein a Soviet consulate official masqueraded as Oswald at the Cuban Consulate.  Or the official didn’t masquerade as Oswald, but the Cubans said he did.  Or some such claptrap.  Because in a city of ten million people, there was only one short, thin, blond guy it could have been.  Max Holland would be proud.  David Atlee Phillips, prouder still.)

It is equally, albeit unintentionally, self-revealing that Tommy cites CIA man Bagley to exculpate CIA man Angleton.  Because, of course, one team member can be considered entirely honest when he absolves another team member.

How does this Bagley chap come to be more important and persuasive than numerous CIA officials who officially investigated Angleton and concluded that he was either a drunk, incompetent or a Soviet mole? 

So, let’s give the accused Mark Lane the chance to do what Tommy didn’t; reply to Tommy’s KGB credulity:

“Holland states that the KGB was secretly funding my work with a payment of "$12,500 (in 2005 dollars)." It was a secret all right. It never happened. Holland's statement is an outright lie. Neither the KGB nor any person or organization associated with it ever made any contribution to my work. No one ever made a sizable contribution, with the exception of Corliss Lamont, who contributed enough for me to fly one time from New York to Dallas to interview eyewitnesses. The second-largest contribution was $50 given to me by Woody Allen. Have Corliss and Woody now joined Holland's fanciful conspiracy?

Funds for the work of the Citizens Committee of Inquiry were raised by me. I lectured each night for more than a year in a Manhattan theater. The Times referred to the very well attended talks as one of the longest-running performances off Broadway. That was not a secret. I am surprised that Holland never came across that information, especially since he refers to what he calls "The Speech" in his diatribe.

Apparently, Holland did not fabricate the KGB story; his associates at the CIA did. There is proof for that assertion, but I fear that I have taken too much space already. For that information, contact me at mlane777@cs.com.

Am I being unfair when I suggest a connection between Holland and the CIA? Here is the CIA game plan: Fabricate a disinformation story. Hand it to a reporter with liberal credentials; for example, a Nation contributing editor. If the reporter cannot find a publication then have the CIA carry it on its own website under the byline of the reporter. Then the CIA can quote the reporter and state, " according to..."

Holland writes regularly for the official CIA website. He publishes information there that he has been given by the CIA. The CIA, on its official website, then states, "According to Holland..." If you would like to look into this matter of disinformation laundering, enter into your computer "CIA.gov + Max Holland." You will find on the first page alone numerous articles by Holland supporting and defending the CIA and attacking those who dare to disagree, as well as CIA statements attributing the information to Holland.”

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKlaneM.htm

Tommy is one of the barnacles clinging to this site for the obvious purpose of deflecting our interest in the leading suspect in the assassination - CIA - just as CIA pays the likes of Max Holland to do.  Paul Trejo is another such barnacle, wasting readers’ time while pushing a theory that is based on zero evidence, but much “opinion.”  It is remarkable that these two men of leisure - as they must be in order to post around the clock - would spend their free time in such fruitless pursuits.

One will also note that both these barnacles adopt a juvenile, almost infantile, tone of mockery when defending the Agency.  Adopting an Elmer Fudd lisp is among Tommy’s condescending techniques.  Mocking “CIA CT”s as somehow mentally aberrant is among Trejo’s self-revealing literary tics.  Mature adults need not resort to such childishness, nor do they need to waste their time reading the utterances of such barnacles.

Forum members may read and respond to such obvious pro-Agency bilge as much as they wish.  But they should at least know the game plan that is at work to dupe them with what is essentially vapor and keep wheels spinning in no fruitful direction.  

It should also not escape the attention of Forum members that there is a very basic and obvious ploy at work in the postings of the barnacles: ABC.

Who killed the President?  

Anybody But CIA.

  

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 10:08 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

  .....

  

 

On February 25th, Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

.......

 

My edited reply:

 

Shouldn't we look at the Mitrokhin Archive, then, as a "mixed bag," a "limited hangout," a massive Ruskie disinfo project -- another "KGB" active measures counterintelligence op, interwoven oh-so-skillfully with yet another strategic deception op (i.e., the "defection" to the U.S. of Mitrokhin)?

 

It's obvious to me that "the KGB" has, by waging "active measures" counterintelligence ops against us and our EU/NATO allies during the past ten years or so on social media's algorithm-based "platforms," recently installed a blackmail-able, expendable-for-Putin, "useful idiot" as our president, in order to sow discord and chaos, especially in "the main adversary," America.

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Do you think Christopher Andrew, official historian for British Intel is secretly working for the CIA, and that's why he's helping KGB officer Mitrokhin spread these (probably untrue) rumors about your hero Mark Lane ?

 

IS the Mitrokhin Archive just another insidious "Langley Production," OR is it (more likely, imho) ... gasp ... a "KGB" disinfo / deception op?

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Robert.  

Good to have you back.  I hope you stick around.  It gets lonely fighting these ABC guys by myself. I ended up putting Trejo on ignore.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see you posting again, Robert. Looking forward to more good info from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

With all due respect, "write a book?"

With all due respect, Tommy, maybe stop posting garbage?  This reply of yours doesn’t rise to the level of amateur, something you and Trejo seem to share.  Even The Who’s Tommy - though deaf, dumb and blind - could do better.

Should we look at the Mitrokhin Archive, then, as just another in a very long line of CHEKA, OGPU, etc, NKVD, KGB, FSB-SVR "active measures" counterintelligence ops, interwoven oh-so-skillfully with yet another "strategic deception" op?

Rule #1 in intelligence: Consider all the possibilities.  Anyone who doesn’t is an idiot.  

If an intelligence agency or operative(s) have a track record of a certain behaviour, it must be taken into account.  So if your above-cited Soviet (and/or parallel or proxy) intelligence operations have a track record of floating horse manure for western consumption, shouldn’t the prevailing mindset be to question anything and everything they issue subsequently?  

Rule #2 in intelligence: Accept as probable those possibilities that have the greatest amount of genuine evidence.  Anyone who doesn’t is an idiot.

So, for example, if somebody is foolhardy enough to suggest - in the absence of anything remotely probative as evidence - that the Cubans in Mexico City stitched up a Soviet consular official by suggesting he masqueraded as Oswald in visiting the Cuban consulate, (or worse still, that he didn’t visit the Cubans but the Cubans said he did) what can be said?  

There is no “there” there.  There is only feverish speculation, the culminations of which serves no discernible purpose, other than to absolve the most obvious authors of the Mexico City charade, whom you will recall were CIA and not G2 or KGB.  Did CIA (or anyone for that matter) ever cough up a photograph of Oswald?  They should have had some, if he were there.  Did they produce a tape recording of his voice?  They should have been able to, because we know there was/were tape/s?  Did they even provide something as simple, but damning as a fingerprint?  Did they even provide evidence of something as mundane and retrievable as Oswald’s means of transport for entry into and egress from MC?  

CIA’s MC station was well-staffed (quantity and quality of personnel), well-funded, and tasked with monitoring what was a major hotspot for presumed Communist activity in North America.  Somehow that devious Oswald outsmarted them all.  Is CIA so unfathomably incompetent?  Or is there something else, and more easily explicable, afoot?     
 
Apparently, in a city of 10+ million people, there was only one man who was simultaneously thin, short and blond?  Why not run that past Lopez and Hardway and see what they think?

But, but, but, even though the FSB and GRU, ..... by using social media-based "active measures" (aka the "sharing" with us of FSB and GRU-hacked e-mails, and the publishing and tweeting of anti-Hillary / pro-Trump "fake news") made even more effective due to the cumulative effects of 90-plus years of "active measures" interwoven very artfully with 58 years of "operational deceptions," and the legions of "tin foil hat conspiracy theories" engendered over the years thereby, and the resultant dumbing-down-of-our-society-in-general thereby, ..... recently installed a blackmail-able, expendable, "useful idiot" as our president in order to sow discord and chaos in our country (at least mine, Robert), why would those nice Ruskies continue messing with our minds by "giving" us this ... this ... this ..... DISINFO ARCHIVE?

If the foregoing can be accurately translated back into English, it only shows your own tin-foil hat is too tight.  Seems to be that you’re making my own point for me.  Yes, they have a track record of dis-informing the west in Mother Russsia, that continues up until this very day.  So when anybody - Mitrokhin, Nechiporenko, Nosenko, et al - defects with a story, or even documentation, extreme skepticism is the only proportional response.  You’d like to pick and choose, based upon your own assumptions.    

Serious people have suggested the Soviets were behind the Oswald “Mr. Hunt” note, the stories in Paesa Sera re: CMC/Clay Shaw, etc.  Whether they are correct or not, they are responsible and rational to assume Russians guilty until proved innocent.  Nothing that comes from Russia - even the treasures brought by “defectors” - can be taken at face value.  

You think it laughable that the Soviets never seriously probed Oswald upon his arrival.  You may be right.  But it may also be that the Soviets already knew, or had reason to suspect, that Oswald was not a bona fide defector.  Hence, he was under surveillance, but never recruited.

I think it equally laughable that upon his return from the USSR, the CIA displayed no known interest in him.  The Agency knew that Oswald had attempted to “defect” and “renounce his citizenship,” that he had threatened to disclose to the Kremlin any and all military secrets he possessed, and was thus a traitor to his country.  Do you find it explicable that this traitor had his return fare paid by the US taxpayer but was never debriefed upon his return?  Is CIA so unfathomably incompetent?  Or did they, like the Russians, know that Oswald hadn’t been a genuine defector?  And if he wasn’t a genuine defector, who sent him there?

Hmm, but I AM beginning to see your point, Robert ...

After all, those fake archives DO tell us that Yuri Nosenko was a true defector.

Again, you make my point for me.  I say the Mitrokhin material is suspect.  You assert it is genuine - and cite it approvingly - while nevertheless stating it is completely wrong about whether Nosenko was genuine.  So, you get to pick and choose what you believe from the same source.  Interesting... um.... methodology.

--  Tommy  :sun

Or, or, or ... do you think Christopher Andrew, official historian for British Intel and co-author (with Mitrokhin) of "The Sword and the Shield," is  really working for the evil, evil, evil ... (gasp) ... CIA?

And that the Mitrokhin Archive are just another insidious "Langley Production"?

Can you prove otherwise?  Thought not.

PS  Should somebody tell Mister Simkin he's been duped by ... somebody?

John Simkin wasn’t duped by anybody.  He reported accurately what had been disclosed from the Mitrokhin material.  Don’t recall his writings urging either skepticism or credulity.  I just did.  

Somehow, between the time of my prior post today and my attempt to log on just now, my password had been invalidated.  Funny that it worked a few hours back, but now does not.  Interesting, no?  Oh yes, of course.  We are advised “logins entered here could be compromised.”  D’ya think?  I’m flattered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please allow RCD permanent log on status.  Thanks.  As one can see, his posts are valuable.

Commenting on Nosenko: is it not obvious today that the Soviets had Oswald figured out pretty quickly?  It is pretty clear that not only was the Metropole  wired, but the KGB probably figured, "Hey, how did the guy know to go through Helsinki?"  And probably also, "Where the heck did he get the money to stay at two five star hotels while he was there?"

I mean Oswald had to fake a suicide attempt just to stay in Russia.  But even then, they shipped him to Minsk and then covered him with both human and electronic intel. To most people, this would indicate that they knew he was not a genuine defector, and therefore they were spying on him.

So just where was the attempt at recruiting him?  When did it happen? And where is the evidence that he ever worked for them? I mean Epstein, as we know, was doing Legend with Angleton's input. And as we know from his research staff, which was plentiful, they were instructed to steer away from Oswald's FBI/CIA ties and play up his KGB/G2 ties.  

Well, what did Epstein come up with?  And if one takes a look at everything he deliberately ignored in New Orleans and Mexico City--I mean its pretty bad. And even then, the result is unconvincing.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 1:09 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

  .....

 

 

Robert,

 

Does the fact I can prove neither that 1) the Mitrokhin Archive was a KGB "active measures disinfo project," nor 2) it wasn't a Langley Production, somehow prove that it must have been an evil, evil, evil Langley Production?  Analogous to the fact that I can't prove the earth isn't flat?

 

IIRC, John Newman found documentary evidence that Oswald was debriefed / interviewed by CIA upon his return to the good old USA -- someone by the name of Anderson / Andersen?

Regardless, would that little fascist, Spas T. Raikin, count?

 

According to golden, pre-1965 Golitsyn (whom I assume you don't trust; pity that) KGB's Second Chief Directorate's ... gasp ... Department 13 ...  had a standing policy of interviewing every defecting U.S. military type.  You know, to glean any kind of military info, no matter how mundane, from themand to see if that person could be either recruited (even to possibly becoming ... gasp ... a KGB assassin, or ... gasp! ... "flipped."

Rhetorical question:  If Oswald was indeed so unstable (hmm ... did Ozzie slash both wrists, as indicated by the hospital's records, or just one, as he wrote in his "Historical Diary"?) and dangerous-looking, why didn't the Soviets bundle him up and dump him at the front gate of the U.S. Embassy as soon as he'd "recovered"?  Why did they let him stay for two and one-half years, instead?  Because some woman, on the Politboro or some-such thing, ... intervened?

 

My methodology?  I obviously "pivoted" when I realized that you were about half-right, and tried to salvage a modicum of credibility and self-respect by pointing out that the Mitrokhin Archive's being a KGB, "disinfo job" is almost more damaging to tinfoil hatters, in the long run, than Lane's perhaps unwittingly, accepting $16, 000 in today's money from the KGB.

 

(Which point I believe I've just made, come to think of it!)

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RCD,

It's great to see you alive and posting again. I hope you'll chime in more often. This place certainly needs more people like you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 5:45 PM, Don Jeffries said:

RCD,

It's great to see you alive and posting again. I hope you'll chime in more often. This place certainly needs more people like you.

 

Don,

[deleted because it was way too sarcastic on my part] ... (lol), ....  ...nice cover job!

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What cover job?

RCD was one of the best posters ever here.  

Your reply is nonsense.  John has backtracked on Anderson.  And for you to pull out Golitsyn?  I mean do you think the rest of us are stupid?

Michael:  The Russians never gave Lane anything.  He kept track of all his donations and he never got anything from anyone that large.

 

Share this post


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

  .....

 And for you to pull out Golitsyn?  I mean do you think the rest of us are stupid?

  .....

 

James,

With all due respect (which, I'm sorry to say, never was very much, even at the beginning), what do you have against early, "vintage" (pre -1965 or so) Golitsyn?

You do realize that, despite what your guys Wise and Mangold and ... gasp ... Morley may have led you to believe, Golitsyn helped CIA, FBI, and some foreign intelligence services to uncover several active, previously unsuspected Ruskie spies and internal "moles," whereas your boy Nosenko didn't do squat in that regard?

I'm afraid you're showing even more ignorance than usual, here, James.

--  Tommy  :sun

 

PS  You never did read "Spy Wars," or "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," did you.

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read what I wrote?  Or did you ignore it as you usually do.

You are an expert at that are you not?

I asked you a specific question: What is the evidence that Oswald was recruited while he was in Russia?

And you're comment as to why the Soviets did not kidnap him and then shoot him-- I mean please TG.  Is that supposed to be a joke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 8:27 PM, James DiEugenio said:

(dupe)

 

 

On 2/25/2018 at 8:27 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Did you read what I wrote?  Or did you ignore it as you usually do.

You are an expert at that are you not?

I asked you a specific question: What is the evidence that Oswald was recruited while he was in Russia?

And you're comment as to why the Soviets did not kidnap him and then shoot him-- I mean please TG.  Is that supposed to be a joke?

 

James,

 

Which post are you referring to?  My most recent post was in response to your most recent one.  Remember?

If I missed something from an even earlier posts of yours, it was probably because I was laughing so hard that I had to go get a hanky.

 

You want cold hard evidence that Oswald was recruited?

Well gosh, if he had been recruited by those nice Russians, what kind of evidence would you reasonably expect to find, James?

A KGB contract with Oswald's signature on it?  Invitations to his KGB "coming out" party? A tattooed KGB serial number near Oswald's left armpit?

 

Know what's even worse than not reading somebody's post at all, James?  Reading it, but instead of understanding what the writer intended to say, twisting it so as to make it enabling of ones own "counter arguments." 

 

Did I say that the KGB should have shot Oswald and dumped his corpse at the U.S. embassy's front gate?

 

Laughing Out Loud

 

Excuse me ... I have to go get another hanky now.  This one's soaking wet.

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

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

×
×
  • Create New...