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

[James DiEugenio]

OMG, Tommy, you have never read what was in the Pumpkin Papers?

Oh please.  Then let us call this off until you get up to speed.  This site is not about the Hiss case.

And also, please do not quote me back the likes of Ronald Radosh on Navasky.  One of the techniques of the right is to neutralize the charge of McCarthyism with Stalinism.  I guess your good humor did not last even the fifteen minute you said it would. 

As per the Bagley analysis, that would indicate that we have been correct about Oswald from the start, that is with Phil Melanson.  Oswald going to Russia was part of a series of planned defections.  Which is what I also understand, John Newman is now proffering also. Which would indicate that Oswald was, as Jim Garrison said, a CIA agent provocateur.

Does that, in and of itself, mean that the CIA used LHO in its assassination plan?  Not necessarily in and of itself.

But there you add in all the evidentiary indications from closer to the crime time frame.

Edited March 22, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

On 3/22/2018 at 10:13 AM, James DiEugenio said:

OMG, Tommy, you have never read what was in the Pumpkin Papers?

Oh please.  Then let us call this off until you get up to speed.  This site is not about the Hiss case.

  .....

 

The previous day, March 21, James DiEugenio had written:  "I don't consider the Rosenbergs and Sobell to be part of the US government. They were scientists who worked on government projects. Alger Hiss was not a spy, as the most recent literature on that case shows. With that out of the way, care to name some of them?

......

 

OMG, James.  Aren't you aware that our very own John Simkin believes Alger Hiss was spying for the Soviets? 

Oh please ... read this:

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

 

--  TG

 

PS  It's been my observation that most "The CIA Did It" conspiracy theorists seem to consciously or unconsciously minimize the degree of U.S. penetration by Soviet intelligence services before and during WW II, and, of course, during the Cold War.

Now, IF you were to read Bagley's book "Spy Wars" with an open mind, James, you'd realize that the level of said penetrations was actually quite high, and that some American moles and Soviet spies in the U.S. were strongly indicated by circumstantial evidence, but never uncovered. 

Alger Hiss got away with it for quite awhile.

PPS  Here's another name for you:  Edward Ellis Smith, the first CIA officer ever recruited by the Ruskies (in 1956), and very probably the traitor who put the Soviets onto Ptyor Popov, whom they didn't arrest until they'd contrived a way, about a year later, to do so in such a way as to make it look as though they'd discovered him by superior KGB surveillance and/or poor CIA tradecraft, rather than being told about him by a precious-to-the-KGB American mole.

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

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

Question:  Why does the so-called Mitrokhin Archive say that Mark Lane was paid by the KGB to debunk the Warren Commission Report?

Three Possible Answers:

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)."

 

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

What say you?

 

 

Edited and bumped

--  TG

 

PS  A little background:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

Tommy just went through this thread and edited 11 of his posts.

[Thomas Graves]

On 4/6/2018 at 2:44 PM, Michael Clark said:

Tommy just went through this thread and edited 11 of his posts.

 

That's correct, Michael.

Do you find that suspicious and therefore important to point out to the other Forum members?

If you'll look again more closely, you'll realize that none of my edits had to do with altering or even re-phrasing facts I had asserted in the originals, but rather with eliminating the highly offending phrase "with all due respect," (did I miss any?) which, unfortunately, I was wont to use *before* I turned over a new leaf during our recent "Perfect Storm" here, and that I even cleverly indicated that that was what I was doing by putting, in some of them at least, the notation    "[ deleted ]"   in the exact place where the offending phrase had been.

 

Nice catch, Michael.

 

And nice "cover job," too, by the way.

 

Not to worry, though.

I'll just "bump" my post which you, in effect, "covered" a few minutes ago, as soon as the EF-mandatory 24 hours have passed ...

 

--  TG

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

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.

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Bumped as threatened after Michael Clark effectively "covered" it (after I had previously 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 in accordance with the "24 hour rule" as required by the moderators.

 

--  TG

 

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 Clark]

On 2/25/2018 at 4:09 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

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 

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.

 

Robert,

If you are so inclined, I think that you should edit this post such that the reader is clear whom it is that you are quoting. Tommy has heavily edited this thread, without any mind for personal, academic or historical integrity.

Cheers,

Michael

 

[Michael Clark]

13 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Bumped as threatened -- after self-appointed de facto wannabe ethics committee, moderator, and political "commissar" Michael Clark effectively "covered" it (after I had previously 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 in accordance with the "24 hour rule" as required by the moderators.

 

--  TG

 

And, Tommy continues to create his post, after the fact.

[Thomas Graves]

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

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Michael:

Very astute of you to draw our attention to Tommy’s proclivity for altering his posts, even months after the fact.

When he’s been bested by others, he wants to diminish the extent to which it is true.  Even if it means altering the context of the original flow of posts.  Gaslighting by any other name is still gaslighting.

There are many things you can call a man so sneaky, none of them good.

Then there is the matter of witless posts suggesting the original conspirators would never have let Oswald appear on film during the Big Event.

This presupposes that Tommy knows what the conspirators planned (um...how?), and that their plan would fall to pieces if Oswald were observed anywhere other than the 6th floor.

Not so.  And it doesn’t take an Einstein to parse it out.

The fact that others destroyed evidence, censored, altered, and lied after the fact in service of a lone gunman conclusion doesn’t mean that is what the conspirators intended.

In fact, the original charge against Oswald by the Dallas DA stipulated that he killed John Kennedy in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy.

I posit the conspirators wished to create precisely that response.

So, prima facie evidence of other weapons, other possible shooters, rendezvous with “Comrade Kostin” (aka Kostikov), membership in the FPCC, communications with the various leftist parties (Communist, Socialist, etc.) were deliberately left behind and/or “floated” by the conspirators.  So long as Oswald could by tied to the putative murder weapon, given his leftist background, it didn’t really matter who fired it.  He was still part of a Commie conspiracy.  In fact, it was through Oswald’s purported ownership of the weapon that the Commie conspiracy was demonstrably credible, albeit fictitious.

The evidence for this conspiracy wasn’t hidden by the conspirators, but was deep-sixed  by the investigators whose own reputations would suffer if a conspiracy could be proved to the nation’s satisfaction.  It is by tracing who crafted damning evidence against Oswald BEFORE the Big Event that we can identify those who maneuvered him into place on 11/22/63.

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.   

I just find it odd that a number of Forum barnacles all preach various hypothesis as though they were fact, and what they all share in common is diverting interest and discussion away from prime suspects in the CIA, and direct it instead toward General Walker, or pro-Castro Cubans, or Lyndon Johnson, or the KGB.

The fact that CIA pays people like Max Holland for precisely such diversionary codswallop doesn’t mean the Forum barnacles are likewise subsidized.  But, paid or not, they are, like Max Holland, doing the Agency’s bidding.

Accessories After The Fact.  

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

[Paz Marverde]

26 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Tommy’s proclivity for altering his posts, even months after the fact.

When he’s been bested by others, he wants to diminish the extent to which it is true.  Even if it means altering the context of the original flow of posts.  Gaslighting by any other name is still gaslighting.

There are many things you can call a man so sneaky, none of them good.

I subscribe. Word by word 

[Paul Brancato]

45 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Michael:

Very astute of you to draw our attention to Tommy’s proclivity for altering his posts, even months after the fact.

When he’s been bested by others, he wants to diminish the extent to which it is true.  Even if it means altering the context of the original flow of posts.  Gaslighting by any other name is still gaslighting.

There are many things you can call a man so sneaky, none of them good.

Then there is the matter of witless posts suggesting the original conspirators would never have let Oswald appear on film during the Big Event.

This presupposes that Tommy knows what the conspirators planned (um...how?), and that their plan would fall to pieces if Oswald were observed anywhere other than the 6th floor.

Not so.  And it doesn’t take an Einstein to parse it out.

The fact that others destroyed evidence, censored, altered, and lied after the fact in service of a lone gunman conclusion doesn’t mean that is what the conspirators intended.

In fact, the original charge against Oswald by the Dallas DA stipulated that he killed John Kennedy in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy.

I posit the conspirators wished to create precisely that response.

So, prima facie evidence of other weapons, other possible shooters, rendezvous with “Comrade Kostin” (aka Kostikov), membership in the FPCC, communications with the various leftist parties (Communist, Socialist, etc.) were deliberately left behind and/or “floated” by the conspirators.  So long as Oswald could by tied to the putative murder weapon, given his leftist background, it didn’t really matter who fired it.  He was still part of a Commie conspiracy.  In fact, it was through Oswald’s purported ownership of the weapon that the Commie conspiracy was demonstrably credible, albeit fictitious.

The evidence for this conspiracy wasn’t hidden by the conspirators, but was deep-sixed  by the investigators whose own reputations would suffer if a conspiracy could be proved to the nation’s satisfaction.  It is by tracing who crafted damning evidence against Oswald BEFORE the Big Event that we can identify those who maneuvered him into place on 11/22/63.

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.   

I just find it odd that a number of Forum barnacles all preach various hypothesis as though they were fact, and what they all share in common is diverting interest and discussion away from prime suspects in the CIA, and direct it instead toward General Walker, or pro-Castro Cubans, or Lyndon Johnson, or the KGB.

The fact that CIA pays people like Max Holland for precisely such diversionary codswallop doesn’t mean the Forum barnacles are likewise subsidized.  But, paid or not, they are, like Max Holland, doing the Agency’s bidding.

Accessories After The Fact.  

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Thanks for the clear post. I appreciate your phrase ‘prime suspects in the CIA’. Those of us here who continue to examine these suspects are labeled by one poster ‘CIA-did it’ theorists, and he’s very fond of saying that after 55 years we’ve come up with no evidence. This is completely untrue, and such an unsubtle way to view what we do. I for one have no problem with looking at Walker as a person of interest, but huge problems with those who wish to examine Walker, or anyone else, as of they exist in a vacuum, or who pick and choose which connections to examine and which to ignore based on their pet theory. 

[Paz Marverde]

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

[Michael Clark]

A May, 1964, document showing the early interest of Mark Lane in solving the assassination case as well as the FBI's interest in Lane's inquires. This document demonstrates that the Soviets were reporting on the activities of Mark Lane. A Russian informant reports this to the FBI.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32123917.pdf