The Fallacies of Howard J. Osborn and Richards J. Heuer, et al.

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Michael,

Deleted due to technical difficulties.

Bottom line, we've got a lot to "talk about" when I've finished going through Heuer's inaccurate, disingenuous, P.O.S. essay.

But here's a preliminary one for you from the very beginning of the article:  What do you think Nosenko's true rank was in the KGB?

Like Heuer says, "mid-level" (a sneaky-safe, non-informative "categorization" if there ever was one)?

Hmm?

Somewhere between captain and a lieutenant colonel?

See, it's not so much his rank, per se, that matters in the context of his case, but the fact that he changed it so often to accomodate his different narratives.

Would a true defector do that, do you think?

LOL

It's interesting that the KGB "Okay, Nosenko, You Can Hunt For Cherepanov" travel doc Nosenko brought with him to Geneva in January 1964 (which he should have turned in to KGB weeks before) stated that he was a lieutenant colonel, and was signed by none other than General Gribanov, head of the effing Second Chief Directorate (today's FSB), don't you think?

As Bagley points out in Spy Wars:

Nosenko preserved and brought to Geneva in 1964 the KGB document authorizing “Lieutenant Colonel Yuri Nosenko” to travel on a search for a fleeting would-be KGB defector named Cherepanov in December 1963—whereas KGB regulations (as Nosenko agreed when confronted) required that this document be turned in before the next payday and before any further travel could be authorized. (Spy Wars, pp. 87, 167–168, 250–251)

12. How did he keep this document?

13. Why did he bring it to Geneva?

14. Why was that travel authorization (signed by the SCD chief Gribanov) made out to a lieutenant colonel (the rank he claimed) whereas under detailed questioning he admitted having been only a captain (as even the KGB later confirmed)?

15. Is it mere coincidence that Nosenko was already lying about his rank back in 1962, then calling himself a major?

16. Why, after Nosenko's defection in 1964, did a Soviet official in Paris—no doubt acting on KGB authority—try to peddle to the Western press the defector “Colonel” Nosenko's family story? (He moreover presented Nosenko's defection as a disaster for the KGB.) (Spy Wars, p. 163)

17. And why would Nosenko have been sent to search for Cherepanov when another KGB unit does such searches and if, as suggested by questions 1–7 above, Nosenko had not been supervising Cherepanov in the SCD's American-Embassy section—his own explanation for his participation?

LOL

-- MWT   

PS  Have you read Bagley's comments on your boy John L. Hart's "performance" in front of Congress?

PPS  Regarding SB's and CI Staff's very, very, very, very unfair "preconceptions" of Nosenko's guilt, said "preconceptions" were fact-based. The problem for "sadistic" Bagley and that evil, evil, evil Angleton was that Nosenko simply wouldn't  "break". It was as though he'd been psychologically conditioned to persevere "hostile" American interrogations,  without "spilling the beans".  "MKUltra-ed," or some-such thing. Da?

[Thomas Graves]

From Heurer's p-p-p-possibly p-p-p-propagandistic es-s-s-s-say on the alleged m-m-m-m-mishandling of the N-n-n-n-nosenko Case by B-b-b-BAG-ley, et al.:

"Now [in 1967] it was the critics' turn, and the pendulum began its swing. Helms assigned his newly appointed deputy, Rufus Taylor, to oversee the case and to develop a plan for the final disposition of Nosenko's case. DDCI Taylor asked Gordon Stewart, who was shortly to become Inspector General, to review the case and develop a recommendation for future action. Stewart was critical of Bagley's [800-plus page report]. He said it read like a prosecutor's brief, assuming guilt and interpreting every discrepancy as evidence of this guilt.

Stewart granted that SB Division had shown many of Nosenko's assertions to be blatantly false. However, the gaps and contradictions could possibly be explained by personal motives, faulty memory, and coincidence, and did not necessarily compel a conclusion of KGB control."

Sad.

 Very, very misguided and ...

sad.

-- MWT 

PS. Oh well, at least Bagley wrote Spy Wars, Spymaster, and Ghosts of the Spy Wars (see the latter in this thread, above), and those works belatedly influenced John Newman to finally realize that Nosenko was a false defector.

Oh yeah, and HE convinced none other than Peter Dale Scott of same in March 2018, so maybe there's hope for us yet!

Except we do have KGB-boy Putin's "useful idiot" for our president now, huh.

Bummer.

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Michael,

I assume the reason you aren't addressing personally (i.e., with your own words) or even generically the few "tip of the iceberg" fallacies I've pointed out so far (with SO many more to come) in your pro-Nosenko, anti-Bagley "posts" is because you're just ... well ... very, very busy correcting "typos" in that deluded and unwittingly propagandistic Heuer essay, right?

"Waiting On Pins and Needles,"

-- MWT

[Denis Pointing]

Bottom line, we've got a lot to "talk about" when I've finished going through Heuer's inaccurate, disingenuous, P.O.S. essay.

Yeah, well how about 'talking about it' via PM, Facebook, somewhere...anywhere else!! This waste of forum space is boring the pants off the rest of us.

[Ray Mitcham]

Yeah, well how about 'talking about it' via PM, Facebook, somewhere...anywhere else!! This waste of forum space is boring the pants off the rest of us.

Denis, it's not very often I agree with you but on this occasion I do.

[Michael Clark]

Note: The original title of this thread, before Thomas edited it, was: Re: Standing Challenge To Michael Clark (Or Anyone Else Who Wants To Give It A Shot)

Denis, it's not very often I agree with you but on this occasion I do.

Well, Thomas took a perfectly good document, which was readable and could have been left as a link, and posted it here, Gaalified it, making it unreadable.

I took a basically unreadable document and made it readable. I didn’t have much choice about posting it because it only exisxts here in a readable form.

So, honestly, some measure of Thanks is in order, I think. Heuer’s book is an interesting read about dealing with moles, even if you are not interested in the Nosenko case. Additionally, I am providing some counterpunch to Thomas’s never ending blather about some great KGB plot that still attacks us today; which brings me to my last point..

This whole fantasy that Thomas has been preaching about for years is actually a thing. It is not a thing so much in that it is real, but inasmuch as it describes a very real paranoid delusion that there was a great overarching, longitudinal plot by the Soviets to undermine the West. This is what Thomas has been rambling about, but he never calls it by its name because it sounds so ridiculous. Heurer, the author of the piece that I posted, believed in it as well, but he came to his senses. Thomas dove into it decades after the rest of these guys died or came to their senses.

It’s good to know where Thomas is coming from, even if it just makes his worldview look more ridiculous, at least he has company.

[Thomas Graves]

.....

Dear Michael,

"Unreadable"?

That's your excuse?

LOL

I've since gone back and made it more accessible for you.

Cheers!

-- MWT   

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Michael,

Are you going to send a letter to Peter Dale Scott, telling him that "sadistic incompetent" Tennent H. Bagley was wrong, wrong, wrong about Nosenko, and that John Newman was a fool to believe him?

To believe Bagley, that is?

-- MWT