The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!

[Michael Clark]

Michael,

Do you truly believe Nosenko was a true defector, or are you just putting me on?

-- MWT 

Quoting MWT because: “Which makes it all the more puzzling why so many Forum members take the bait and keep engaging this barnacle (Thomas) in discussions he will only warp through subsequent editing anyway.” From post 103.

[Thomas Graves]

Quoting MWT because: “Which makes it all the more puzzling why so many Forum members take the bait and keep engaging this barnacle (Thomas) in discussions he will only warp through subsequent editing anyway.” From post 103.

Michael,

Have you read this New York Times book review yet?

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/books/review/Thomas-t.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR3DFCdKLxdD1th4r92OnDOqYywS1KJYo75lHfM4pKwyb_zQyFsqPRM8YNs

The author of the book, Tennent H. Bagley, has some juicy criticisms of your boy John L. Hart, author of "The Hart Report," aka "The Monster Plot Report," in it.  In the book, that is.
https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames

Cheers!

-- MWT.

[Michael Clark]

From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

Some of these assumptions were erroneous - based on an exaggerated view of overall KGB capabilities. This made possible a series of discoveries of "duplicity" by Nosenko and other counterintelligence sources who could rarely measure up to CIA's expectations of what they ought to have known, accomplished, or said. An important example concerns the gaps in Nosenko's knowledge of operations against the American Embassy in 1960 and 1961, while he was deputy chief of the responsible section. The interrogators developed their own job description for a deputy chief of a section, then used this as a criterion for judging what Nosenko should have known. The job description was faulty, as it was based on the American concept of a deputy who is fully informed, has authority paralleling the chief, and who automatically fills in for the chief when he is absent.

Full Transcription: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25943-richards-heuer-nosenko-five-paths-to-judgement/?tab=comments#comment-405084.

[Thomas Graves]

From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

Some of these assumptions were erroneous - based on an exaggerated view of overall KGB capabilities. This made possible a series of discoveries of "duplicity" by Nosenko and other counterintelligence sources who could rarely measure up to CIA's expectations of what they ought to have known, accomplished, or said. An important example concerns the gaps in Nosenko's knowledge of operations against the American Embassy in 1960 and 1961, while he was deputy chief of the responsible section. The interrogators developed their own job description for a deputy chief of a section, then used this as a criterion for judging what Nosenko should have known. The job description was faulty, as it was based on the American concept of a deputy who is fully informed, has authority paralleling the chief, and who automatically fills in for the chief when he is absent.

Full Transcription: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25943-richards-heuer-nosenko-five-paths-to-judgement/?tab=comments#comment-405084.

Michael,

You don't read The New York Times?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/books/review/Thomas-t.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR3DFCdKLxdD1th4r92OnDOqYywS1KJYo75lHfM4pKwyb_zQyFsqPRM8YNs

Way too "Deep State-ish" for you and James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio at the so-called Education Forum?

--  MWT   

[Michael Clark]

Michael,

You don't read The New York Times?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/books/review/Thomas-t.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR3DFCdKLxdD1th4r92OnDOqYywS1KJYo75lHfM4pKwyb_zQyFsqPRM8YNs

.......

--  MWT   

MWT, why don’t you give us a critical analysis, instead of posting a link over and over and over and over again? It’s probably because your such a small person inside; afraid that he is putting himself out there, facing criticism: and I mean the real criticism, that you might be wrong, and your reasoning is unsound. I’m not talking about the “criticism” that engaging you is a creepy, dirty ordeal, “Mud Wrassler Tommy”, we know that you thrive on that.

[Thomas Graves]

MWT, why don’t you give us a critical analysis, instead of posting a link over and over and over and over again?

Michael,

Because Evan Thomas writes so much better than I do.

And because I figure you're much more likely to listen to him than you are to me.

And because, like you, I'm not very good at critical analysis, or even ... gasp ... rebutting other peoples' arguments with my own words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/books/review/Thomas-t.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR3DFCdKLxdD1th4r92OnDOqYywS1KJYo75lHfM4pKwyb_zQyFsqPRM8YNs

Cheers!

--  MWT   

[Michael Clark]

From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

Nosenko provided identification of, or leads to, some 238 Americans and about 200 foreign nationals in whom the KGB had displayed varying degrees of interest, and against whom they had enjoyed varying degrees of success. He provided information on about 2,000 KGB staff officers and 300 Soviet national agents or contacts of the KGB. His information on the methods and scope of Second Chief Directorate operations against foreign diplomats and journalists in Moscow and visitors to the Soviet Union filled a large gap in our knowledge and had an enormous impact on the raising of CIA's consciousness of these operations; the result was important improvements in the physical security of U.S. installations and the personal security of U.S. officials and advisors to the USSR. The Soviet Union suffered additional costs through the adverse publicity and deterrent effect of Nosenko's defection and the arrest of several agents he identified.

Full Transcription: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25943-richards-heuer-nosenko-five-paths-to-judgement/?tab=comments#comment-405084.