Thomas Graves

17 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

Tommy

Buell has already identified the person he spoke to as 'Sarah'. There was only one Sarah on the steps - Sarah Stanton.

So Buell has outed this person but now wants to protect her identity? I'm afraid that doesn't really fly.

I can't think of any reasons that Buell might want to protect Sarah's identity - especially after he's already identified her.

I can think of a lot of reasons why he might not want to identify Oswald as PM.

 

 

 

 

 

Vanessa,

Do you think Frazier conspired with the bad guys in the assassination or its coverup?

If so, how many other TSBD employees do you believe did that, too?

Truly, Campbell, Shelley, Lovelady, Frazier, Dougherty, Reid (?), ...

Am I missing anyone?

--  TG

On 4/2/2018 at 3:51 PM, Michael Clark said:

Bart, you need to put up or........ as well.

Without making a thesis about it, and trying to stay on topic, make a case against Doyle, Tommy's.... whatever, and Sandy's mistakes.

So, you won a Lancer award. You're  resting on your laurels, sinking low, disrespecting the forum and its membership, and hardly rising above Tommy's antics.

Bart, what you got? Let's see it.

Michael,

Thanks.  I couldn't agree more.

(Although I probably would have tried to state it a little more diplomatically than you did.)

--  TG

6 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

If Stanton is Prayer Man and Buell is talking to 'her' then why hasn't Buell been able to identify the person in the PM position? 

At last count, Buell has denied knowing who PM is.

Surely if PM was the person Buell says he spoke to and referred to as 'Sarah' he would know that PM was Sarah Stanton.

 

 

Vanessa,

That's an excellent question.

Perhaps, for some "strange" reason, to protect her identity?

IDK

--  TG

55 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

What has caused you to start making common cause with Doyle, Tommy?

Vanessa,

Perhaps you missed it, but about a year ago, after I had proved that the dark-complected woman in the group of three women "by" the Stemmons Freeway sign was not Gloria Calvery, but self-described Native American Stella Mae Jacob, Sandy Larsen and I were able to spot Calvery in the Z-Film and in Couch-Darnell.

A few weeks ago, Brian contacted me on FB and informed me that he'd recently reached Calvery's son by phone and that, to his great chagrin, Mr. Calvery had, in effect (by directing Brian's attention to the tall woman visible above the windshield in Betzner 3), confirmed Sandy's and my findings.

Since then, Brian has "turned me onto" Buell Wesley Frazier's 2013 Sixth Floor Museum interview in which Frazier says that when a "crying girl came by the steps and said that JFK had been shot," he and a "Sarah" turned to each other to confirm that they'd correctly understood what the "crying girl" (Calvery?) had said. 

In my humble opinion, the fact that Frazier can be seen facing in the general direction of "Prayer Man" in Couch-Darnell, and the fact that "Prayer Man" obviously turned in the direction of Frazier at some point between Weigman and Couch-Darnell, tends to indicate that "Prayer Man" was this "Sarah."

Now, the fact that Brian has "turned me onto" these things and has also pointed out to me some serious flaws in Andrej's models, leads me to believe that Brian, if he's willing to promise to be civil, should be permitted to rejoin the Forum to point out things and "argue his case," so that we can all move forward with more plausible "facts" and solve the JFK Assassination.

I hope that answers your question, Vanessa.

--  TG

7 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

Tommy

I haven't been on for a while but I'm flabbergasted by this suggestion and that the mods are seriously considering it. Brian Doyle?? I agree with Jim Di. surely Doyle has discredited himself on this forum and many others.

Sarah Stanton is Prayer Man? I cannot believe anyone is seriously considering this. If anyone looks like a man it is Prayer Man. No 1960's woman would ever appear in public looking like that man in the corner.

What has got into you Tommy?

 

 

 

 

Vanessa,

The "catch," of course,  is whether or not Brian is willing to promise to be civil here.

--  TG

On 3/31/2018 at 11:35 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I second this

Thanks, Paul.

Do you still feel this way (that Brian Doyle should be readmitted to the Forum if he promises to be civil)?

-- TG

On 3/20/2018 at 4:49 PM, Michael Clark said:

Hi Evan, do you see a possibility that archaeological forum could be opened?

Cheers,

 

Michael

Yes, I'm interested in archaeology (and physical anthropology), too!

--  TG

On 12/30/2017 at 3:49 PM, Michael Clark said:

Wow Rich, T

Wow Rich, that is indeed an interesting background. Welcome to the forum!

I agree!

--  TG

8 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

A witness.

A tape recording.

Any sort of PROOF above mere speculation. 

Speculation is NOT PROOF.

Again, anyone with access to a dictionary can discover that "speculation" is not the same as "proof."

It's really not a leap of faith. If you don't understand the difference, you can use the dictionary to discover the difference. If you DO understand the difference, but refuse to accept it as such...

...that's on you.

Mark,

Would a reasonable person expect there to BE an eavesdropping witness to "Prayer Man's" and Frazier's short conversation?

A tape recording?

Really?

I take it that you prefer to believe that "Prayer Man" was Oswald?

What "facts in evidence" do you have for believing that, Mark?

"Because Oswald was innocent, damn it, and this proves it!" ?

"Because 'Prayer Man' kinda looks like Oswald (except for the buttons and the girth)"?

"Andrej's graphics, Tommy!"

In which Andrej managed to force a 5' 9" man into an uncomfortable but inaccurate-according-to-the-shadows position so that (5' 9.5" Oswald) "Prayer Man" wouldn't look too tall or too short (or something like that) compared to Frazier in Couch-Darnell?

Question:  How in the world did "PM" pivot, between Weigman and Couch-Darnell, towards Frazier on just one foot on a step like that, for cryin' out loud? 

(Sorry; Laughing Out Loud)

--  TG

2 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

  .....

Mark,

I'm obtuse, huh?  Is that a synonym for stupid?  Are you a moderator?  Is that permitted?  Shouldn't you have called me "a barnacle," instead, like the oh-so-intellectual Robert Charles-Whatshisname did on my Mitrokhin thread?

Regardless,  why else would "Prayer Man" and Frazier have turned in each other's direction in that situation, Mark, if not to say something to each other?

Especially since Frazier said in his 2013 interview that he turned to a "Sarah" when he heard a crying girl (who had "come by" the steps) tell someone else that JFK had been shot.  Do you really think Frazier did a 180 to ask Andrej's tiny "Sarah 'Blob' Stanton" behind him what she had heard?

The Situation:  A crying girl has come up to the steps and is telling the people there in a loud voice that she's just seen JFK's head get blown off.

(Warning: There's a bit of sarcasm coming up.)

So that "Prayer Man" could check out what the other people on the steps were wearing, and so that Frazier could stare off into space and wonder if his battery is okay?

What kind of evidence would it take to convince you that "Prayer Man" talking (or had just finished talking), Mark?

A witness?

A tape recording?

--  TG

PS  You don't dispute the other "obtuse" points I made in my earlier post, Mark?

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Once again you are ASSUMING facts not in evidence. You are constantly begging for speculation on this thread. How about sticking to the FACTS and leaving the speculation-is-now-accepted-as-fact posts to Mr Trejo.

Or how about refraining from asking for speculation from other members, simply because you believe you can out-speculate everyone else? 

I'm through responding to the inane line of questioning you continue to put forth in this post. If you seek facts, ask for facts. If you want clairvoyance, I suggest you contact a medium and see what his/her crystal ball reveals.

I don't know a polite way to tell you that if you have nothing to add, it would behoove you to stop adding that nothing on top of your existing level of nothing.

Mark,

What in the world do you mean above by "facts not in evidence"?

Do you consider Thierry Speth's, Don Roberdeau's, and Robin Unger's mislabeling of Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Jeanne Holt, and Sharon Simmons as "Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed" for so many years to have been "facts in evidence" for all those years?

(Laughing Out Loud)

(Don't even get me started on Karen Westbrook's recent mislabeling of the aforementioned Jacob, Holt, and Simmons as "Maybe Carol Reed, definitely Gloria Calvery, and definitely me, Karen Westbrook".)

Do you not believe that Sandy and I correctly identified Gloria Calvery in the Z-Film and in Couch-Darnell?

Do you not believe that "Prayer Woman" pivoted in the direction of Buell Wesley Frazier at some point during the 30-second unfilmed interval between the end of Weigman and the beginning of Couch-Darnell? 

Do you not believe Chris Davidson's estimate that the Couch-Darnell clip started around 25 seconds after the assassination, and that, fwiw, Marrion Baker reached the curb in front of the TSBD about 29 seconds after the assassination?

Corollary Question:  Do you not realize that Gloria Calvery and her colleague-in-white had plenty of time to walk from the two lower yellow spots in this graphic by Michael Walton to get to the steps before Couch and Darnell started filming the front of the TSBD?

Have you compared "Prayer Man's" orientation in Weigman with "Prayer Man's" orientation in Couch-Darnell, Mark?

Can you see where Sandy and I have spotted Calvery and her colleague-in-white on the steps in Couch-Darnell, and can you see that Calvery is talking with the person in front of her on the steps?  Can you see that "Prayer Man" and Frazier are turned in each other's direction in Couch-Darnell?

Do you not believe your ears when Frazier says in his 2013 Sixth Floor Museum interview that (paraphrased) "a crying girl came by the steps, before Shelley and Lovelady left to go down towards the Triple Underpass, and this crying girl said that JFK had been shot, and when Sarah and I heard that, we turned towards each other to ask each other if we'd heard correctly what the girl had said"? 

--  TG

8 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Thomas,

It looks like Andrej was coming back into this, offering his research for you to digest and then for you to consider and respond to. It appears as if you didn't even look. I don't know any other way to put this, but to me, it looks like you sort of flipped both  he and his research  off.

This is probably why he is frustrated. It would have stopped me too.. 

(My bad for responding to this. Every time someone responds, it goes back to the top of the page.)

Kathy,

Have you looked at any of the ("contrast-adjusted") frames showing "Prayer Man" clearly in Weigman, and compared them with frames showing "Prayer Man" in Couch-Darnell?

If so, wouldn't you agree that "Prayer Man" must have turned towards Frazier at some point between the end of the Weigman clip's coverage of the TSBD steps/entryway and the beginning of the Couch-Darnell clip's coverage of same?

It seems to me that Andrej doesn't want to admit that "Prayer Man" has turned in Frazier's direction during that approximately 30-second-long photographic interval between Weigman and Couch-Darnell, an interval during which Gloria Calvery, who witnessed President Kennedy's head's being blown off down on Elm Street, arrived at the TSBD steps and started telling someone on a lower step what she had just seen, and probably told that person what she had just seen in a loud enough voice for "Prayer Man" and Frazier to hear what she was saying.

--  TG

5 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sorry, Thomas, this ends my discussion with you on yet another thread.

Andrej,

What's bothering you?

Have I asked you some questions that you can't answer?

Do you think I'm "playing dirty"?

If so, how so?

--  TG

Do you deny that "Prayer Man's" orientation changes quite a bit between Weigman and Couch-Darnell?

11 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thomas:

your post reveals that you are not able to realise how inappropriate your style of posting is. I understand that you conceded that Darnell's film proved that Prayer Man was Stanton because it depicted the exact moment of their conversation, and then you raise further questions. May I also ask a question? Why do you not try to answer your own questions with some research and evidence? I am not going to answer any of your questions which you yourself do not even try to answer. 

 

Andrej,

Sorry, but I don't completely understand your post.

I conceded something?  

In Couch-Darnell, we can see "Prayer Man" after he or she has turned (from his or her orientation in Weigman) towards Frazier to talk with him, and the way Frazier is standing in Couch-Darnell, we can be reasonably sure that he wasn't facing in that direction during the motorcade, but turned towards "Prayer Man" during the same period of time as "Prayer Man" was turning towards him.

It makes sense that Frazier is facing the way he is in Couch-Darnell in order to "keep one ear" on what Gloria Calvery is still saying to somebody down below (Lovelady?), and "the other ear on" whatever "Prayer Man" might be saying to him, or that Frazier might even be answering a question from "Prayer Man" while watching the crying-and-talking Calvery. 

--  TG

PS  Have you ever compared "Prayer Man's" orientation in Weigman with his or her orientation in Couch-Darnell?

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

  .....

Andrej,

In interviews of witnesses to traumatic / chaotic events taken fifty years after the fact, you can't expect unequivocal timing from anybody on anything.

Regardless, you seem oblivious to the fact that "Prayer Man" and Frazier turned towards each other (and remained that way) at some point during the unfilmed interval between the end of the Weigman clip and the beginning of Couch-Darnell's coverage of the steps and entryway, which change can be be discerned, after the fact, when you look at "Prayer Man" in Weigman, and then look at "Prayer Man" and Frazier in Couch-Darnell.

Tangential Question:  How could "Prayer Man," be he male or female, pivot like that towards Frazier if he or she were standing with one foot on the top step, and the other foot on the landing?

--  TG

2 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Me, too.

Kathy,

Do you believe "Prayer Man" was Oswald?

If so, why?


Are you convinced by the photographic evidence?  ( EDIT:  Are you aware that between the end of Weigman and the beginning of Darnell, "Prayer Man" and Buell Wesley Frazier pivoted towards each other right about the same time that Gloria "Big Girl" Calvery ran up to the TSBD steps, which photographic evidence strongly suggests that "Prayer Man" was none other than the "Sarah" whom he said in a 2013 interview that he and she had turned towards and spoken to each other right after a "crying girl came by the steps" and told the people there that JFK had been shot?)

Andrej's modeling?

Or do you, like most of the other members here, in my humble opinion, just want him to be there and hope / believe that the evidence supports that conclusion?

Regardless (and in keeping with the subject of this thread), do you think it's plausible that the bad guys would let him kinda wander around outside the building like that during the shooting?

Thank you,

--  TG

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

"...isn't it equally possible...that they told him...to be in the 2nd floor lunch room...so Baker and Truly could encounter him there around 12:33?"

Yes. 

And it's possible he was told nothing of the sort.

It's also possible that the point of this thread is, it has no point, other than putting your name at the top of the thread list with each bump, and with each query that begins to border on redundancy.

And it's likewise possible that I'm getting tired of playing this silly game which uncovers NO usable information...but keeps Thomas Graves at the top of the thread list.

Many things are POSSIBLE. Discerning which are PROBABLE is the task of greatest difficulty, in many cases.

But not ALL cases.

 

Mark,

" ... or somehow tricked him ... "

--  TG

EDIT ALERT: 

A question for you, Mark.

What evidence do you have that (I'm gonna give you a break, here) strongly suggests that "Prayer Man" was Oswald?

On 4/8/2018 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

"Did Tommy really not consider so obvious an hypothesis before creating that thread?

Apparently not.  Which tells us something about Tommy’s intellectual rigor.  As in, there’s little evidence for it.  

Which makes it all the more puzzling why so many Forum members take the bait and keep engaging this barnacle in discussions he will only warp through subsequent editing anyway."   

 

Robert,

 

(deleted)

 

Regardless, this thread is about the so-called Mitrokhin Archives, and how it states, probably incorrectly, that the KGB paid Mark Lane $6000 in todays' dollars to debunk the Warren Commission Report.

I assume that you and most of the other members of this forum believe, based on the Mitrokhin Archives' saying such a nasty, nasty thing about Mark Lane, that the Archive must be a clever disinformation operation by the evil, evil CIA.

I, on the other hand, would argue that it is much more likely an active measures / strategic deception op by the KGB/FSB, intended, among other things, to create confusion and dissension in the JFK Assassination Research Community, and to cast aspersions on The Community as a whole.

If I remember correctly, the Mitrokhin Archive, in addition to spreading that (probably) untrue allegation against Lane, also stated as fact the bald-faced l-i-e that Yuri Nosenko was a true defector.  But, having already returned the copy of the book I was reading to the library, I am admittedly going from memory here.  So, I'll have to "check it out," and if it turns out that I was wrong about that, I'll just have to return to this post at some point in the future and ... gasp ... edit it.

 

--  TG

 

 

EDIT

 

Ah yes, looks as though I was right about Mitrokhin Archives' "take" on Nosenko.

 

From Andrew's and Mitrokhin's book The Sword and the Shield:

 

"In November 1963 Aleksandr Nikolayevich Cherepanov of the KGB Second Chief Directorate
(internal security and counter-intelligence), sent the American embassy in Moscow a packet
of highly classified papers dealing with the surveillance and entrapment of diplomats and
other foreigners in Russia, together with a note offering his services to the CIA. In the
ambassador’s absence, the deputy head of mission feared that the documents were part of a KGB
provocation. Though the head of the CIA station was allowed to photograph the documents,
the originals, despite his protests, were returned to the Russians. Cherepanov fled from Moscow
but was arrested by KGB border guards on the frontier with Turkestan on December 17, 1963. He
admitted during interrogation that the operational secrets he had revealed to the Americans included

the use of “spy dust” (metka), special chemicals applied to suspects’ shoes to facilitate
tracking. Cherepanov was sentenced to death at a secret trial in April 1964. The Centre’s damage
assessment of the case concluded: It is not possible to determine why the Americans betrayed
Cherepanov. Either they suspected that his action was a KGB provocation or they wanted to burden

the KGB with a lengthy search for the person who had sent the package to the embassy.
Though the CIA was not responsible for Cherepanov’s betrayal, it was shortly to make another, even
more serious error. In February 1964 Yuri Ivanovich Nosenko, a KGB officer serving on the Soviet
disarmament delegation in Geneva, who had begun working for the Agency in June 1962, defected to
the United States. Nosenko's CIA debriefers, however, wrongly concluded that he was a KGB plant.

Unaware of the CIA’s horrendous misjudgement, the Centre regarded Nosenko’s defection as a serious
setback. Its damage assessment began with the usual character assassination, claiming that Nosenko
(henceforth codenamed IDOL), had been infected — like Golitsyn — with the “virus of careerism.”

Nosenko, who lusted for power, did not hide his ambitions and obtained a high position. The leadership
of Department 1 at Headquarters will not forget Nosenko’s hysterical reaction when he was informed of
their plans to promote him from deputy chief to chief of section [otdeleniye]. “The chief of the
directorate has promised that I will replace the head of the department [otdeiy he shouted shamelessly.
The characteristics of careerism were evident in many curious facets of his life. When he became the deputy
chief of another department, Nosenko was ashamed of his rank [KGB captain], which was below that normally
associated with his position. He would return unsigned any documents with “Captain” on them, and would only
sign documents on which his perceptive subordinates had not indicated his rank.'"

 

etc.

 

https://archive.org/stream/TheSwordAndTheShield-TheMitrokhinArchiveAndTheSecretHistoryOfTheKGB/The+Sword+and+the+Shield+-+The+Mitrokhin+Archive+and+the+Secret+History+of+the+KGB_djvu.txt

 

 

 

I am bumping this now [EDIT: has it been at least 24 hours yet, Michael?] with a polite "heads up" warning:  I WILL be editing it later (and will mark said edits with appropriate indicators), and [EDIT: will be doing so] specifically in order to shed some Tennent H. Bagley-esque light on something I included [EDIT: from Andrew's and Mitrokhin's book The Sword and the Shield],above, but only for context [EDIT: on the Nosenko Situation]: The Cherepanov Deal and the ramifications thereof.

Meanwhile, while y'all are waiting on pins and needles for that to go down (I've got some things to do today [EDIT: in beautiful La Jolla; have you googled it yet?]), hopefully my on-again off-again debating partner, James DiEugenio, will reappear and attempt to support his claim, made earlier on this very thread, that Alger Hiss was NOT spying for the Soviets (the GRU, iirc), inspite of my having (gerund there) recently informed James that our very own patron, John Simkin, apparently begs to differ with him.

--  TG

On 4/8/2018 at 10:34 AM, Paz Marverde said:

I'm frankly thinking to leave the Forum ...

Paz,

Seriously, please don't go.

EDIT ALERT: [Believe it or not, ] I actually enjoy having you around!

--  TG

EDIT ALERT:  Gerunds are tricky.  Correct would be: "I'm thinking OF LEAVING," or "I'm thinking ABOUT LEAVING."

(Funny how that Russian-speaking Hungarian lad / young man would probably have got / gotten that right.)

Sorry, I couldn't help it.  You know, *my being* a Grammar Nazi and all / everything ...

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

I just don't think the plotters cared much what Oswald was doing. I believe they had a plan for releasing information that would get Oswald caught.

On the other hand, I just have to believe that the plotters wanted him dead. He must have been given instructions to follow after the assassination. The result of which would be his death. But something went wrong.

 

Sandy,

Well, not sure if you mean that the bad guys and gals gave Oswald instructions [ EDIT: immediately ] after the assassination on what to do next, or if you mean they gave him instructions before the assassination on what to do after it, but [ EDIT: regardless, ] isn't it equally possible (as Doyle and Gilbride seem to believe) that they told him (either before or after the assassination) to be in the 2nd floor lunch room [ EDIT: around 12:30 ], you know, so Baker and Truly could encounter him there around 12:33?

--  TG

EDIT ALERT: " ... or somehow tricked him ..."

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

It wasn't the plotters' intent that Oswald be found guilty of shooting the president. It was their intent that he be found guilty of conspiracy to kill the president.

I mean, why would the plotters care one way or another that Oswald be personally held responsible for firing the gun? Oswald was needed only to draw a (fabricated) connection between the assassination and Russia/Cuba.

It was the fledgling Johnson Administration who decided that Oswald himself shot the gun -- with nobody else's involvement. Which it did to avoid war. Johnson's coverup was not part of the plotters' plan.

 

Sandy,

Aren't you kinda suggesting the plotters actually wanted Oswald to be captured on film, maybe eating his [ EDIT: sammie ] or drinking his coke-cola during the shooting?

You know, in order to kinda prove he was ... gasp ... a (dirty rotten Commie) conspirator? 

After all, if he happened to be inside the building and unseen or unnoticed by anybody for, say, one minute before and one minute after the shooting, how could anyone later prove he was a WW III-precipitating conspirator rather than just a ... gasp ... lone nut?

--  TG

3 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

  .....

"Did Tommy really not consider so obvious an hypothesis before creating that thread?

Apparently not.  Which tells us something about Tommy’s intellectual rigor.  As in, there’s little evidence for it.  

Which makes it all the more puzzling why so many Forum members take the bait and keep engaging this barnacle in discussions he will only warp through subsequent editing anyway."   

Robert,

(deleted)

Regardless, this thread is about the so-called Mitrokhin Archive, and how it states, probably incorrectly, that the KGB paid Mark Lane $6000 in todays' dollars to debunk the Warren Commission Report.

I assume that you and most of the other members of this forum believe, based on the Mitrokhin Archives' saying such a nasty, nasty thing about Mark Lane, that the Archive must be a clever disinformation operation by the evil, evil CIA.

I, on the other hand, would argue that it is much more likely an active measures / strategic deception op by the KGB/FSB, intended, among other things, to create confusion and dissension in the JFK Assassination Research Community, and to cast aspersions on The Community as a whole.

If I remember correctly, the Mitrokhin Archive, in addition to spreading that (probably) untrue allegation against Lane, also stated as fact the bald-faced l-i-e that Yuri Nosenko was a true defector.  But, having already returned the copy of the book I was reading to the library, I am admittedly going from memory here.  So, I'll have to "check it out," and if it turns out that I was wrong about that, I'll just have to return to this post at some point in the future and ... gasp ... edit it.

--  TG

EDIT

Ah yes, looks as though I was right about Mitrokhin Archives' "take" on Nosenko.

From Andrew's and Mitrokhin's book The Sword and the Shield:

"In November 1963 Aleksandr Nikolayevich Cherepanov of the KGB Second Chief Directorate
(internal security and counter-intelligence), sent the American embassy in Moscow a packet
of highly classified papers dealing with the surveillance and entrapment of diplomats and
other foreigners in Russia, together with a note offering his services to the CIA. In the
ambassador’s absence, the deputy head of mission feared that the documents were part of a KGB
provocation. Though the head of the CIA station was allowed to photograph the documents,
the originals, despite his protests, were returned to the Russians. Cherepanov fled from Moscow
but was arrested by KGB border guards on the frontier with Turkestan on December 17, 1963. He
admitted during interrogation that the operational secrets he had revealed to the Americans included

the use of “spy dust” (metka), special chemicals applied to suspects’ shoes to facilitate
tracking. Cherepanov was sentenced to death at a secret trial in April 1964. The Centre’s damage
assessment of the case concluded: It is not possible to determine why the Americans betrayed
Cherepanov. Either they suspected that his action was a KGB provocation or they wanted to burden

the KGB with a lengthy search for the person who had sent the package to the embassy.
Though the CIA was not responsible for Cherepanov’s betrayal, it was shortly to make another, even
more serious error. In February 1964 Yuri Ivanovich Nosenko, a KGB officer serving on the Soviet
disarmament delegation in Geneva, who had begun working for the Agency in June 1962, defected to
the United States. Nosenko's CIA debriefers, however, wrongly concluded that he was a KGB plant.

Unaware of the CIA’s horrendous misjudgement, the Centre regarded Nosenko’s defection as a serious
setback. Its damage assessment began with the usual character assassination, claiming that Nosenko
(henceforth codenamed IDOL), had been infected — like Golitsyn — with the “virus of careerism.”

Nosenko, who lusted for power, did not hide his ambitions and obtained a high position. The leadership
of Department 1 at Headquarters will not forget Nosenko’s hysterical reaction when he was informed of
their plans to promote him from deputy chief to chief of section [otdeleniye]. “The chief of the
directorate has promised that I will replace the head of the department [otdeiy he shouted shamelessly.
The characteristics of careerism were evident in many curious facets of his life. When he became the deputy
chief of another department, Nosenko was ashamed of his rank [KGB captain], which was below that normally
associated with his position. He would return unsigned any documents with “Captain” on them, and would only
sign documents on which his perceptive subordinates had not indicated his rank.'"

etc.

https://archive.org/stream/TheSwordAndTheShield-TheMitrokhinArchiveAndTheSecretHistoryOfTheKGB/The+Sword+and+the+Shield+-+The+Mitrokhin+Archive+and+the+Secret+History+of+the+KGB_djvu.txt

42 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Tommy, Robert Charles Dunne replied, in depth, to your earliest posts in this thread. He quoted you at length. Nearly all of those portions of quoted material are now gone; leaving the reader to have to figure out whom he was quoting. And you claimed that you did not delete anything of substance? It's all right there in RCD's reply.

And you claimed that you edited your posts because you turned a new leaf, yet you left in your jabs at Jim D, where you exclaim how little respect you have always had for him? Get real.

Michael,

A little more than 24 hours ago, you, in effect, accused me of the heinous crime of having just edited eleven count them e-l-e-v-e-n of my posts in this thread.

Now, I might be wrong (because I AM going from memory here; I have other things to do this morning -- it's a beautiful day here in La Jolla), but I *believe* that the "portions" to which you referred just thirty so minutes ago *might* have been edited out or "altered" at some point before that.

Perhaps you should start taking "screenshots" of all my posts, if you haven't already done so, so that you can "catch me out" more effectively in the future?

--  TG

On 2/25/2018 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

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 

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

What say you?

 

Bumped as threatened -- after Self-Appointed, De Facto Wanna-Be Ethics Committee Chairperson, Revolutionary, Moderator, and Political Commissar MICHAEL CLARK had effectively "covered" it (after I'd edited and bumped it) with his inane, derailing, trouble-making, one-sentence post in which he notified members that I had just ... gasp ... edited eleven count them e-l-e-v-e-n of my other posts in this thread) -- and bumped said also-possibly-edited (can't remember now) post in accordance with the "24 hour rule" as required by the moderators.

--  TG

EDIT WARNING:  I HAVE JUST NOW EDITED THIS POST AGAIN.