Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!  (Read 13269 times)

Offline Michael Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #230 on: September 09, 2019, 03:50:54 AM »
...
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 03:52:11 AM by Michael Clark »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #231 on: September 09, 2019, 03:54:52 AM »
....


Hey, Michael!

Wanna pull an "all-nighter"?

--  MWT   ;)


PS  How's that letter coming along?

You are gonna set 'em straight, right?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 03:56:39 AM by Thomas Graves »


Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #233 on: September 09, 2019, 04:57:53 AM »

. . .


Michael,

Do you realize how pathetic you look to our open-minded and inquisitive guests?

--  MWT   ;)


PS  How's that letter to professors Newman and Scott coming along?

You're gonna set 'em straight about your boy, Nosenko, right?

LOL




« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 02:33:13 PM by Thomas Graves »

Offline Michael Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #234 on: September 10, 2019, 01:47:31 AM »

https://jfkfacts.org/was-yuri-nosenko-a-kgb-mole/#more-29709


Was Yuri Nosenko a KGB mole?
jeffmorley
A readeader asks:

Do you still believe Nosenko was a true defector, Jeff?

Have you read Tennent H. Bagley’s “Spy Wars,” or even his 35-page PDF “Ghosts of the Spy Wars”?

Yes, I did read Bagley’s Spy Wars. I also interviewed him. And yes, I do believe Nosenko was a true defector.

I think Bagley was wrong, for two reasons: lack of a plausible suspect and lack of damage to CIA operations.

Remember Angleton’s theory that Nosenko was a dispatched defector is inextricably bound up in the theory that Nosenko was dispatched to protect a mole already working inside the CIA as of January 1964.  So the  reader’s question is really two, was Nosenko a mole? And, if so, who was he protecting?

As I asked in THE GHOST

if there was a mole burrowed into the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s, as the Angletonians claimed, who the devil was it? And what damage did he do?

James Angleton
James Angleton oversaw the surveillance of Oswald
Those who argue that Nosenko was a controlled defector need to answer these two questions. I was especially convinced by George Kisevalter, the most experienced CIA officer handling Russian defector. Kisevalter always vouched for Nosenko’s bonafides.

From THE GHOST

“Kisevalter’s opinion was not idiosyncratic. In 1997, he received the agency’s Trailblazer Award recognizing him as one of fifty top CIA officers in its first fifty years, an honor Angleton did not receive. There was never any doubt in Kisevalter’s mind about the bona fides of Yuri Nosenko. Three subsequent reviews by senior CIA officers reached the same conclusion. So did Cleveland Cram, the former London station chief who wrote the definitive study of Angleton’s operations.. So did Benjamin Fischer, a career officer who became the agency’s chief historian.

“The Great Mole Hunt or Great Mole Scare of the late 1960s turned the CIA inside out ruining careers and reputations in search for Soviet penetrations that may or may not have existed,” Fischer wrote.

The dissenters from the institutional consensus about the Mole Hunt were mostly officers who had served Angleton on the Counterintelligence Staff. The Angletonians, as they called themselves, were a dogged bunch. Bill Hood and Pete Bagley asserted that the clandestine service was never penetrated during Angleton’s watch–which is true. They also claimed that the CIA’s operations against the Soviet Union were not unduly harmed by the Mole Hunt–which is not.

Yuri Nosenko and wife
Exonerated mole suspect Yuri Nosenko and wife.
Angleton and his acolytes would speak many words in his defense and write more than a few books. They cited scores of statements by Yuri Nosenko that they said were not credible or misleading, and indeed, Nosenko had exaggerated and embellished as defectors often do.  But if there was a mole burrowed into the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s, as the Angletonians claimed, who the devil was it? And what damage did he do?

The CIA has learned from hard experience what happened when the Soviets succeeded their operations: agents were arrested and executed. But even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the opening of significant portions of KGB archives, the Angletonians could not identify any operations compromised by the putative mole [allegedly protected by Nosenko]. They could not even offer up the name of a single plausible candidate. After the passage of five decades, the likeliest explanation is that there wasn’t a mole.”

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #235 on: September 10, 2019, 02:27:24 AM »
https://jfkfacts.org/was-yuri-nosenko-a-kgb-mole/#more-29709


Was Yuri Nosenko a KGB mole?
jeffmorley
A readeader asks:

Do you still believe Nosenko was a true defector, Jeff?

Have you read Tennent H. Bagley’s “Spy Wars,” or even his 35-page PDF “Ghosts of the Spy Wars”?

Yes, I did read Bagley’s Spy Wars. I also interviewed him. And yes, I do believe Nosenko was a true defector.

I think Bagley was wrong, for two reasons: lack of a plausible suspect and lack of damage to CIA operations.

Remember Angleton’s theory that Nosenko was a dispatched defector is inextricably bound up in the theory that Nosenko was dispatched to protect a mole already working inside the CIA as of January 1964.  So the  reader’s question is really two, was Nosenko a mole? And, if so, who was he protecting?

As I asked in THE GHOST

if there was a mole burrowed into the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s, as the Angletonians claimed, who the devil was it? And what damage did he do?

James Angleton
James Angleton oversaw the surveillance of Oswald
Those who argue that Nosenko was a controlled defector need to answer these two questions. I was especially convinced by George Kisevalter, the most experienced CIA officer handling Russian defector. Kisevalter always vouched for Nosenko’s bonafides.

From THE GHOST

“Kisevalter’s opinion was not idiosyncratic. In 1997, he received the agency’s Trailblazer Award recognizing him as one of fifty top CIA officers in its first fifty years, an honor Angleton did not receive. There was never any doubt in Kisevalter’s mind about the bona fides of Yuri Nosenko. Three subsequent reviews by senior CIA officers reached the same conclusion. So did Cleveland Cram, the former London station chief who wrote the definitive study of Angleton’s operations.. So did Benjamin Fischer, a career officer who became the agency’s chief historian.

“The Great Mole Hunt or Great Mole Scare of the late 1960s turned the CIA inside out ruining careers and reputations in search for Soviet penetrations that may or may not have existed,” Fischer wrote.

The dissenters from the institutional consensus about the Mole Hunt were mostly officers who had served Angleton on the Counterintelligence Staff. The Angletonians, as they called themselves, were a dogged bunch. Bill Hood and Pete Bagley asserted that the clandestine service was never penetrated during Angleton’s watch–which is true. They also claimed that the CIA’s operations against the Soviet Union were not unduly harmed by the Mole Hunt–which is not.

Yuri Nosenko and wife
Exonerated mole suspect Yuri Nosenko and wife.
Angleton and his acolytes would speak many words in his defense and write more than a few books. They cited scores of statements by Yuri Nosenko that they said were not credible or misleading, and indeed, Nosenko had exaggerated and embellished as defectors often do.  But if there was a mole burrowed into the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s, as the Angletonians claimed, who the devil was it? And what damage did he do?

The CIA has learned from hard experience what happened when the Soviets succeeded their operations: agents were arrested and executed. But even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the opening of significant portions of KGB archives, the Angletonians could not identify any operations compromised by the putative mole [allegedly protected by Nosenko]. They could not even offer up the name of a single plausible candidate. After the passage of five decades, the likeliest explanation is that there wasn’t a mole.”

Michael

Have you seen my reply to this on my new "Sinister Implications" thread, yet?

Do you think your "saturation dumping" technique impresses our open-minded and inquisitive guests?

Cheers!

--  ;)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 08:17:47 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #236 on: September 16, 2019, 05:09:41 AM »
Michael,

Do you realize how pathetic you look to our open-minded and inquisitive guests?

--  MWT   ;)


PS  How's that letter to professors Newman and Scott coming along?

You're gonna set 'em straight about your hero, Nosenko, right?

LOL




OMG

I just now realized that Michael Clark probably hasn't been banned after all -- he's just working on that letter he's gonna send to professors Newman and Scott, notifying them that HSCA perjurer John L. Hart's hush-hush 187-page The Monster Plot Report was finally released by the National Archives two years ago!

(They must not have known it, seein' as how they were so badly fooled by that evil, evil, evil-and-incompetent Tennent H. Bagley!)

--  MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 05:20:18 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #237 on: September 20, 2019, 01:20:58 AM »
OMG

I just now realized that Michael Clark probably hasn't been banned after all -- he's just working on that letter he's gonna send to professors Newman and Scott, notifying them that HSCA perjurer John L. Hart's hush-hush 187-page The Monster Plot Report was finally released by the National Archives two years ago!

(They must not have known it, seein' as how they were so badly fooled by that evil, evil, evil-and-incompetent Tennent H. Bagley!)

--  MWT  ;)

I miss Michael Clark.

Where has he gone?

Gasp -- Is he on a two-week suspension, or is he just worn out?

It's so dead around here without him!

--  MWT   :'(

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #238 on: September 22, 2019, 11:46:10 PM »
Michael,

Do you realize how pathetic you look to our open-minded and inquisitive guests?

--  MWT   ;)


PS  How's that letter to professors Newman and Scott coming along?

You're gonna set 'em straight about your boy, Nosenko, right?

LOL




I do wish Michael Clark would come back so we could talk about these things.

Except Michael doesn't exactly talk about them, he just posts discredited essays and debunked FBI and CIA documents about them, instead.

Over and over and over again.

-- MWT  ;)



Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!
« Reply #239 on: October 23, 2019, 01:22:02 AM »
I do wish Michael Clark would come back so we could talk about these things.

Except Michael doesn't exactly talk about them, he just posts discredited essays and debunked FBI and CIA documents about them, instead.

Over and over and over again.

-- MWT  ;)

Michael,

Have you watched John Newman's two-part March 2018 youtube video presentation about Bagley's book Spy Wars yet?

-- MWT ;)


« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 01:23:00 AM by Thomas Graves »

 

Mobile View