Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

Golitsyn elaborated on this report with his own speculation, which played a major role in development of the master plot theory. (It should be noted at this point that Golitsyn was a highly egocentric individual with an extremely conspiratorial turn of mind; after his defection, he became certifiably paranoid.) Golitsyn felt that his information was so important and damaging to the KGB that the Soviets would feel compelled to send out another source to discredit him or his information. In short, Golitsyn predicted the appearance of someone like Nosenko as a KGB plant. Golitsyn also predicted that a KGB penetration of American intelligence would be assisted by other KGB agents, false - defectors and double agents-who would provide information designed to bolster the penetration's position and access in the service. The penetration, in turn, would be in a position to help authenticate the other agents. Golitsyn's speculation became the core of the master plot theory.

Full Transcription: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.

92
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wise men know when to keep their mouths shut..

"A wise man learns from others' mistakes, the average man learns from his own mistakes, and then, of course, there's Michael Clark."

-- ancient proverb
93
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes! Yes! Yes!

The Cold War is over!

-- MWT  ;)

Wise men know when to keep their mouths shut..
94
General Discussion & Debate / Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Last post by Colin Crow on August 21, 2019, 01:05:21 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Colin, stop stirring the pot for Christ's sake. Aren't things bad enough between those two.  :D :D :D

But I did Denis..... ;D. I assume we are all after the truth.

I also posted this......

Gee Bill, how can every post of yours be better than the next one?

I wonder whether that is as clear to you as it is to most of us.  8)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

95
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

“The election of President Reagan and the subsequent appointment of William Casey as DCI led to the sixth full-scale study of the Nosenko case- 17 years after his defection. Tennant Bagley, who had retired nine years earlier, sought to use the opportunity of a new administration with a harder line on the Soviet Union to reopen the case. In March 1981 he sent the new DCI a lengthy study entitled "Why Nosenko Is a Plant-and Why It Matters." He argued that acceptance of Nosenko indicated continued high-level penetration and manipulation of CIA by the KGB. Director Casey named Jack Fieldhouse to investigate Bagley'S allegations.

In August 1981, Fieldhouse produced a study entitled "An Examination of the Bagley Case Against Yuriy Nosenko." Whereas previous analysts had  focused exclusively on Nosenko's statements and his handling, Fieldhouse recognized the importance of the historical context in which the case transpired. He noted at the outset, for example, that the foundation of the problem was laid before Nosenko ever arrived, as this was at a time when fear of the power of the KGB was perhaps at an all-time high. This historical context, and the reasons for the fear, are discussed in detail below. Fieldhouse's report refutes Bagley's arguments point by point; identifies what went wrong and how it was possible for so many capable CIA officers to be so wrong for so long; and describes the serious adverse impact the master plot theory had on the handling of many
other Soviet cases.

Full Transcription: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

The Cold War is over!

-- MWT  ;)
96
From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

“The election of President Reagan and the subsequent appointment of William Casey as DCI led to the sixth full-scale study of the Nosenko case- 17 years after his defection. Tennant Bagley, who had retired nine years earlier, sought to use the opportunity of a new administration with a harder line on the Soviet Union to reopen the case. In March 1981 he sent the new DCI a lengthy study entitled "Why Nosenko Is a Plant-and Why It Matters." He argued that acceptance of Nosenko indicated continued high-level penetration and manipulation of CIA by the KGB. Director Casey named Jack Fieldhouse to investigate Bagley'S allegations.

In August 1981, Fieldhouse produced a study entitled "An Examination of the Bagley Case Against Yuriy Nosenko." Whereas previous analysts had  focused exclusively on Nosenko's statements and his handling, Fieldhouse recognized the importance of the historical context in which the case transpired. He noted at the outset, for example, that the foundation of the problem was laid before Nosenko ever arrived, as this was at a time when fear of the power of the KGB was perhaps at an all-time high. This historical context, and the reasons for the fear, are discussed in detail below. Fieldhouse's report refutes Bagley's arguments point by point; identifies what went wrong and how it was possible for so many capable CIA officers to be so wrong for so long; and describes the serious adverse impact the master plot theory had on the handling of many other Soviet cases.

Full Transcription: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.

97
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

Dismissal of the top CI Staff leadership encouraged those pushing for Nosenko's total exoneration and his recognition as an important and valuable source. In 1976, John Hart was recalled from retirement to spend six months investigating the Nosenko case and its effects on CIA. Hart became incensed by what he perceived as an inhuman approach to handling Nosenko and the prosecutorial approach to assessing his bona fides. At DCI Stansfield Turner's request, Hart gave CIA senior officers a series of lectures on lessons learned from the case, and he testified on the subject before Congress.

Hart's study, entitled "The Monster Plot," concluded that doubts about Nosenko's bona fides were of our own making. Much of his study was devoted to demonstrating that those who handled the case were "not objective, dispassionate seekers of truth," and that the case was mishandled because the goal from its inception was to obtain proof that Nosenko was guilty, not to determine whether he was or not. Hart effectively documented much of what went wrong-errors in the transcripts of the initial meetings with Nosenko, faulty assumptions about the KGB, and the preconceptions that made it virtually impossible at that time for any source on Soviet intelligence to establish his bona fides in the eyes of SB Division or the CI Staff. But Hart did not really answer the arguments of those who claimed Nosenko was dispatched by the KGB. Hart believed that those initially responsible for the Nosenko case were so thoroughly discredited by the way they handled it that it was unnecessary to answer their arguments in any detail.

Full Transcription: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.

Michael,

I really think you should turn John Newman onto this as soon as possible, before he can screw up some other heavyweight researchers (and students!) and get them to swallow hook-line-and-sinker the crazy, "Deep State" idea that Nosenko was false defector!  And Fedora and Top Hat and Kochnov, et al., too!  (Or triple-agents, actually.)

--  MWT  ;)
98
From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

Dismissal of the top CI Staff leadership encouraged those pushing for Nosenko's total exoneration and his recognition as an important and valuable source. In 1976, John Hart was recalled from retirement to spend six months investigating the Nosenko case and its effects on CIA. Hart became incensed by what he perceived as an inhuman approach to handling Nosenko and the prosecutorial approach to assessing his bona fides. At DCI Stansfield Turner's request, Hart gave CIA senior officers a series of lectures on lessons learned from the case, and he testified on the subject before Congress.

Hart's study, entitled "The Monster Plot," concluded that doubts about Nosenko's bona fides were of our own making. Much of his study was devoted to demonstrating that those who handled the case were "not objective, dispassionate seekers of truth," and that the case was mishandled because the goal from its inception was to obtain proof that Nosenko was guilty, not to determine whether he was or not. Hart effectively documented much of what went wrong-errors in the transcripts of the initial meetings with Nosenko, faulty assumptions about the KGB, and the preconceptions that made it virtually impossible at that time for any source on Soviet intelligence to establish his bona fides in the eyes of SB Division or the CI Staff. But Hart did not really answer the arguments of those who claimed Nosenko was dispatched by the KGB. Hart believed that those initially responsible for the Nosenko case were so thoroughly discredited by the way they handled it that it was unnecessary to answer their arguments in any detail.

Full Transcription: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.

99
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From Richards Heuer’s:   Nosenko: Five paths to judgement

“I will start by making my personal bias clear. I became a believer in the master plot theory in 1965 when first exposed to the reasoning described above under the motive approach. Although initially a believer, I never put much stock in Bagley's Thousand Pager, as I had learned from experience to be skeptical of conclusions based on the anomalies and inconsistencies approach to counterintelligence analysis. My first doubts arose when, one by one, various expectations failed to materialize, which is the reasoning described above under the predictive test approach. Subsequently, for reasons discussed under the cost accounting approach-the high volume of significant intelligence being received through multiple sources-I rejected the master plot theory and concluded that Nosenko was not acting under KGB control. This conclusion was recently reinforced when, in doing research for this study, I learned how the many anomalies and contradictions were eventually explained.”

Full Transcription: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.

Wow, that's quite a testimonial.

From a gullible, wishful-thinking person who, unlike spiteful and under-endowed Howard J. Osborn, also was spiteful and under-endowed but had absolutely no experience whatsoever with Soviet Russia/Soviet Block Counterintelligence efforts.

LOL

--  MWT   ;)
100
Off Topic / A Few Good Sea Shanties
« Last post by Bill Chapman on August 21, 2019, 12:45:28 AM »
'The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald'  Gordon Lightfoot

'NorthWest Passage'  Stan Rogers

'Roll the Old Chariot'  David Coffin

'Sloop John B'  The Beach Boys

> a few more to come <


-------------------------------
BILL CHAPMAN UNPLUGGED
-------------------------------
A Few Good Songs
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few MORE Good Songs
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few Good Cowboys
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OMG
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few Good Whack Jobs
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few MORE Good Whack Jobs
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few Good Tech Ads
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few Good Love Songs
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few Good Car Chases
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few MORE Good Car Chases
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Few Good Sea Shanties
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Mobile View