JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Anyone but Tom understand what the "KGB stuff" is all about?
Lance Payette:
More to the point: Insofar as I am able to determine, John Newman has NEVER published ONE WORD in ANY peer-reviewed scholarly or professional journal. This is almost unbelievable. Despite his supposed bombshell discoveries, he has not submitted ONE for peer review. This in itself is sufficient to tell you that Newman is not a "serious researcher" in any context other than JFKA-mania.
(Don't be misled: There is another John M. Newman who is a professor and publishes extensively in professional journals on antitrust topics.)
Little Old Me has published in law reviews. You can find my first, "Risks Under the Antitrust Laws Against Tying and Monopolization," published in the Idaho Law Review in 1986, if you care to subscribe to the service HeinOnline. I absolutely busted my butt on that obscure piece, but the first submission for peer review just about had me in tears (it was rejected by a much more influential journal than the ILR, but I did eventually have a piece included in the upper-echelon Antitrust Law Journal a decade later).
Instead of bandying about terms like "serious researcher," folks should challenge kooky Newman as to why he self-publishes and, despite his academic connections, has NEVER submitted ANYTHING for peer review. Just ONE "Oswald CIA" nugget, pal, just ONE.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on January 24, 2026, 02:20:23 PM ---Instead of bandying about terms like "serious researcher," folks should challenge kooky Newman as to why he self-publishes and, despite his academic connections, has NEVER submitted ANYTHING for peer review. Just ONE "Oswald CIA" nugget, pal, just ONE.
--- End quote ---
Dear Sonderführer Storing I mean Fancy Pants Rants,
It's "Oswald and the CIA," not "Oswald CIA."
Regardless, Tennent H. Bagley earned a PhD in political science from the University of Geneva, and his 35-page article, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," was published in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence in 2014.
Why are you afraid to read it?
Is it because your wife doesn't want you to?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362#d1e141
The International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence is a quarterly academic journal about intelligence studies and responses to intelligence activities. All articles submitted to this journal undergo editorial screening and review.[1] The journal was established in 1986[2] and is published by Routledge. The editor-in-chief is Dr. Jan Goldman (The Citadel).[3] -- Wikipedia
Another International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence article that's pro-Bagley and anti-Nosenko is Alan W. Messer's 2013 "In Pursuit of the Squared Circle: The Nosenko Theories Revisited," in which he posits the idea that Nosenko was -- as Bagley says in "Spy Wars" -- a false defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962, sent to the CIA there to discredit what a recent true defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, was telling James Angleton about possible KGB penetrations of the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies -- but instead of a false physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964, he was a rogue one whose bona fides the KGB had no choice but to support through its moles in the CIA and its Kremlin-loyal triple agents like Aleksei Kulak (J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA at the Bureau's NYC field office).
Here's the blurb on Messer:
W. Alan Messer joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1972 after serving in the U.S. Army and earning an M.A. in International Affairs from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. For nearly sixteen years he was an analyst on Soviet defense economics, including strategic missile production assessments, in the Agency's Directorate of Intelligence. After a two-year stint in the Directorate of Science and Technology, serving as a program manager in its Mobile Missile Assessment Center, Mr. Messer joined the Directorate of Operations as an operations officer on operational counterintelligence, specializing in the Soviet/Russian intelligence services. He retired from the CIA in 2003.
It's a great read, but unfortunately it costs $56 at Taylor & Francis Online.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2013.757994?needAccess=true
-- Tom
Lance Payette:
I'm starting to feel somewhat guilty about kicking TG's butt, but I saw his post when I logged out and, hey, I actually read Bagley's article.
Uh, no, TG, back to the drawing board for you.
Bagley's article is not a peer-reviewed research piece. The title - duh - kind of tells you that. TG conveniently doesn't give you the full title:
"Ghosts of the Spy Wars: A Personal Reminder to Interested Parties."
In case you didn't catch that:
A PERSONAL REMINDER
By far the greatest number of citations are to Bagley's own book. IT'S AN OPINION PIECE, TG. Jesus.
Know how many times it's been cited since it was publshed in 2014. Correct: ZERO.
I don't know if the Wikipedia article on the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence was written by TG, but it is not accurate. From the journal itself:
"The International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence serves as a medium for professionals and scholars to exchange opinions on issues and challenges encountered by both government and business institutions in making contemporary intelligence-related decisions and policy."
In case you didn't catch that:
EXCHANGE OPINIONS
Peer review is limited to research articles. Bagley's "personal reminder" was not a research article.
"Peer Review Policy: All papers submitted to the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence undergo initial editorial screening. Once deemed suitable, research articles are sent out for double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent referees."
Give it up, TG. Thank God I don't see most of your posts, but you are embarrassing yourself in the ones I do see.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on January 24, 2026, 03:49:18 PM ---I'm starting to feel somewhat guilty about kicking TG's butt, but I saw his post when I logged out and, hey, I actually read Bagley's article.
Uh, no, TG, back to the drawing board for you.
Bagley's article is not a peer-reviewed research piece. The title - duh - kind of tells you that. TG conveniently doesn't give you the full title:
"Ghosts of the Spy Wars: A Personal Reminder to Interested Parties."
In case you didn't catch that:
A PERSONAL REMINDER
By far the greatest number of citations are to Bagley's own book. IT'S AN OPINION PIECE, TG. Jesus.
Know how many times it's been cited since it was publshed in 2014. Correct: ZERO.
I don't know if the Wikipedia article on the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence was written by TG, but it is not accurate. From the journal itself:
"The International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence serves as a medium for professionals and scholars to exchange opinions on issues and challenges encountered by both government and business institutions in making contemporary intelligence-related decisions and policy."
In case you didn't catch that:
EXCHANGE OPINIONS
Peer review is limited to research articles. Bagley's "personal reminder" was not a research article.
"Peer Review Policy: All papers submitted to the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence undergo initial editorial screening. Once deemed suitable, research articles are sent out for double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent referees."
Give it up, TG. Thank God I don't see most of your posts, but you are embarrassing yourself in the ones I do see.
--- End quote ---
Lance, you're a fool.
As are all Trump-lovers.
And why are you shouting all of a sudden?
ME: Has Tennent H. Bagley's 2014 article, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," been cited in any books or articles by "serious" authors?
GROK: Yes, Tennent H. Bagley's 2014 article "Ghosts of the Spy Wars: A Personal Reminder to Interested Parties" (published in the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, Vol. 28, No. 1) has been cited or referenced in several works by authors in the intelligence studies field, including academics, historians, and former intelligence professionals — whom one could reasonably consider "serious" in this specialized domain.
Key examples include:
It appears in the bibliography of the book KGB Literati (University of Toronto Press, 2025 or late publication context), listed as: Bagley, Tennent H. “Ghosts of the Spy Wars: A Personal Reminder to Interested Parties.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence.
It is cited in academic theses/dissertations, such as Kyle S. Cunliffe's thesis "An existential crisis and a golden opportunity? Assessing hard-target espionage in the cyber era" (Aberystwyth University), where it is referenced in the context of Cold War spy operations and sources.
It is referenced in intelligence/counterintelligence library guides, such as the Naval War College's LibGuide on "Counterintelligence: Cold War," which lists it among key resources.
It has been discussed or quoted in online analyses and commentary by writers focused on espionage history, including Substack posts and SpyTalk (a platform with contributions from journalists and former intelligence figures) that engage seriously with Bagley's arguments on topics like KGB penetrations, Yuri Nosenko, and cases such as TOPHAT.
The article itself is hosted on academic platforms like Taylor & Francis (the journal publisher), ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Ingenta Connect, often with metrics or download options indicating scholarly interest.
While it does not appear to have extremely high citation counts on open sources (e.g., no prominent Google Scholar hits surfaced in broad searches, possibly due to the niche field and paywalls), its inclusion in bibliographies, theses, and specialized intelligence literature shows it has been taken seriously and engaged with by experts in Cold War espionage studies.
Bagley's work overall (including his earlier book Spy Wars) is frequently praised in these contexts as insightful from a former CIA counterintelligence officer's perspective. The 2014 piece serves as a follow-up/extension to those ideas and has been noted accordingly by authors in the field. If you're looking for specific citation counts or full-text access, academic databases like JSTOR or the journal's site would provide more precise metrics.
. . . . . . .
ME: How about his 2007 book, "Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games"?
GROK: Yes, Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games (published by Yale University Press) has been widely cited, referenced, and engaged with by "serious" authors in the fields of intelligence studies, Cold War history, espionage scholarship, and related academic/professional work. As a memoir/analysis from a former senior CIA counterintelligence officer focused on the controversial Yuri Nosenko defection case (and broader KGB-CIA interactions, including mole-hunting and figures like Oleg Penkovsky and Dmitri Polyakov), it has sparked debate and been taken seriously—though opinions on its conclusions vary.
Key indicators of its reception among credible sources include:
Academic and scholarly citations/reviews — It received a formal review in the peer-reviewed journal Intelligence and National Security (Vol. 24, No. 3, 2009), where it's discussed in the context of Cold War espionage history. The book appears in bibliographies and library catalogs for intelligence studies programs (e.g., via WorldCat, university libraries like Missouri University of Science & Technology, and academic databases). It's referenced in discussions of KGB penetrations, defector reliability, and CIA internal debates.
Reviews by prominent journalists, historians, and intelligence experts — Positive or notable endorsements came from figures like:
Evan Thomas (historian and author of books on U.S. intelligence, such as The Very Best Men).
David Ignatius (longtime Washington Post columnist on intelligence and foreign affairs).
Ron Rosenbaum (journalist and author known for Cold War/esoterica writing).
Edward Jay Epstein (author of books on intelligence and the Warren Commission).
Frederick Kempe (former Wall Street Journal editor and author of Berlin 1961).
A detailed New York Times review by Evan Thomas (2007) treated it as a serious contribution, noting Bagley's insider perspective on Nosenko and potential moles.
William Safire (Pulitzer-winning New York Times columnist) selected it as a "publishing sleeper-seller of the year" for 2007.
Influence in broader intelligence literature — It's frequently mentioned in discussions of Cold War spy cases (e.g., Nosenko's role in Oswald-related claims, Angleton's mole-hunt paranoia). Later works by Bagley himself (like Spymaster in 2015, co-authored with insights from KGB General Sergey Kondrashev) build on it and reference similar themes. It's also cited or alluded to in online analyses by former intelligence professionals and historians on platforms like SpyTalk or archived commentaries. The book is available free on the Internet Archive and has been discussed in contexts challenging official narratives (e.g., by authors skeptical of Nosenko's bona fides).
While exact citation counts aren't always easy to pinpoint in open sources (Google Scholar results were limited in searches, likely due to the niche field and paywalls), its inclusion in specialized journals, major reviews, and intelligence bibliographies shows substantial engagement by academics, historians, journalists specializing in espionage, and ex-intelligence figures. Critics (including some historians like Christopher Andrew) have questioned its interpretations as overly suspicious or unconvincing, but that's common in this contentious area—it's still treated as a key primary source and provocative contribution rather than dismissed.
Overall, Spy Wars is far more prominent and cited than the 2014 article, reflecting its status as a full-length, Yale-published work that stirred debate in serious circles upon release and continues to inform discussions on CIA-KGB "spy wars."
If you're interested in specific excerpts, reviews, or related books, I can point you to sources like the Intelligence and National Security review or the NYT piece.
Lance Payette:
The journal in which Bagley's opinion piece was published (after his death at age 88) shows "Citations: 0."
I hate to break the news to TG, who has a case of Bagley worship unprecedented in my considerable experience with religious fanatics of all stripes, but references in books and articles are not "citations." Citations in this context means peer-reviewed journals. That's why the journal itself shows 0.
Holy God, you folks have no idea - or maybe you do, but I didn't - of the level of OBSESSION you are dealing with in TG. In my little effort at researching Bagley's opinion piece, I discovered that TG is literally EVERYWHERE that Bagley is mentioned. You literally can't write something about Bagley or the KGB stuff on the most obscure site without TG spewing spittle all over his keyboard. Truly, and I mean this sincerely, I do not believe I have EVER, ANYWHERE, encountered a level of obsession like this. What you see at this forum, jaw-dropping as it is, is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Well, I hope this thread has elucidated TG's "KGB stuff" for some of you. It hasn't for me, "exposed" being the term that I might use.
I will now let TG have the last 47 posts and 28,312 words that no one reads because he literally can't stop himself.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version