How do you know that Hart is “Totally Wrong” if you have not read his work?
Michael,
I
have read all 186 pages of Hart's
Monster Plot.
It gave me a headache and made me feel nauseous because in it he says things that only a gullible, wishful-thinking person who was abjectly inexperienced in counterintelligence against the KGB and GRU would say, or even worse, that a KGB or GRU mole in the CIA would say.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that he was just a spiteful and under-endowed dude who didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Have you read Bagley's 2007 book,
Spy Wars, or even watched,
in toto, John Newman's two-part
Spy Wars presentation from March, 2018?
By the way, why are you so silent about the fact that Newman was so convinced by Bagley's writings that he, in turn, convinced none other than Peter Dale Scott that Bagley was correct in his assessment of Nosenko, i.e., that Nosenko was a false defector sent here to detract from what Anatoliy Golitsyn was telling CIA about possible moles and triple-agents in CIA, the FBI, and in some of our European allies' countries?
Do you think Bagley's writings somehow fooled Newman, and fooled him so thoroughly that Newman himself somehow unwittingly fooled Scott?
Why are you so silent about that, Michael?
Is it too uncomfortable an issue for you to even think about, Bagley-detractor-and-despiser that that you are? Are you too proud to admit that Bagley must have been right about Nosenko (and Cherepanov and Loginov and Kochnov and Kulak and Polyakov and ...)?
-- MWT
PS Do you want me to enumerate, with commentary, everything Hart was wrong about in his
magus opus?
I will, but only on one condition -- that you try to rebut --
with your own reasoning and your own words -- every single point I make, ... and we'll do them one-by-one, you and I. In other words, I ain't going on to the "next" point until you've tried to rebut the one we are on at the time.
Otherwise, why should I knock myself out knowing that you probably won't even read what I've written?
Which reminds me, have you read and understood the ten enumerated points I made about Cherepanov and Loginov, et al., in my long post about Heuer's fallacious
Five Paths to Judgement?
Perhaps we should start with that, what do you say, Michael?
As I recall, my very first point was about Cherepanov ...
