The Monster Plot, by CIA's Very Own KGB Apologist John L. Hart!

[Michael Clark]

Michael,

Don't you get it? The post-1959 (i.e., post inauguration of SCD's "Department 14") shenanigans of "Fedora" (Aleksei Kulak) and "Igor" (Igor Kovshuk) and Yuri Nosenko, as described in Trento's and Hurt's articles, constitute the beginning (and very damaging part) of the (ongoing today, imho) "Monster Plot" that true-defector Anatoliy Golitsyn tried to warn CIA about. Not to mention the "shenanigans" of GRU Colonel Dimitri Polyakov, and KGB officer Igor Loginov, and, and, and ...so many, many others not mentioned in these particular articles. LOL!
............

Thomas, You should read John Harts’s work, the subject at hand, “The Monster Plot”, along with Richards Heuer’s “Nosenko: Five Paths to Judgement”, a little, ok, a lot more carefully. You could perhaps rest more easily and stop spamming forums like Chicken Little. The Monster Plot is a myth, formed by Bagely and Angleton who were either remarkably stupid or willing pay an enourmously, and I mean gigantonormously, high price to hide something; something as big as the assassination of a sitting American President.

Yet, incompetence and stupidity do not explain what I have highlighted in my screenshots of John Hart’s book, “The Monster Plot”.

Here is another example of willful incompetence, or a complete lack of attention to doing what was, ostensibly, their job, Gathering information. They just were not interested:

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, You should read John Harts’s work, the subject at hand, “The Monster Plot”, along with Richards Heuer’s “Nosenko: Five Paths to Judgement”, a little, ok, a lot more carefully. You could perhaps rest more easily and stop spamming forums like Chicken Little. The Monster Plot is a myth, formed by Bagely and Angleton who were either remarkably stupid or willing pay an enourmously, and I mean gigantonormously, high price to hide something; something as big as the assassination of a sitting American President.

Yet, incompetence and stupidity do not explain what I have highlighted in my screenshots of John Hart’s book, “The Monster Plot”.

Here is another example of willful incompetence, or a complete lack of sttention to doing what was, ostensibly, their job, Gathering information. They just were not interested:

Michael,

Would you agree that Hart's 186-page report colloquially known as "The Monster Plot" is about the large "plot" that Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed the KGB had started waging against us in 1959 when it's brand new "Department 14" of the Second Chief Directorate (today's FSB) dispatched GRU Colonel Dimitri Polyakov back to the U.N. in New York City so that he could "volunteer" to spy for the CIA and the FBI?  The big "plot" that Golitsyn tried to warn CIA and even the FBI about?

Started, I said. 

In other words, Operation Boomerang (as Bagley refers to the Polyakov thingy in Spy Wars) was just the very first "Department 14" op, and as such constituted just the tip of the iceberg of what was to come later, and what your boy -- gullible, brainwashed (or worse) -- CIA Operations Dude John L. Hart, derisively and ignorantly called "The Monster Plot".

Did he smoke too much opium in Saigon, or something?  Meet a nice gal at a the Queen Bee?


--  MWT   

Do you even read the articles and excerpts I post, Michael?

If not, why not?

Because you consider them "Deep State Fake News"?

[Michael Clark]

Michael,

Would you agree that Hart's 186-page report colloquially known as "The Monster Plot" is about the large "plot" that Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed the KGB had started waging against us in 1959 when it's brand new "Department 14" of the Second Chief Directorate (today's FSB) dispatched GRU Colonel Dimitri Polyakov back to the U.N. in New York City so that he could "volunteer" to spy for the CIA and the FBI?  The big "plot" that Golitsyn tried to warn CIA and even the FBI about? Started, I said.  In other words, Operation Boomerang (as Bagley refers to the Polyakov thingy in Spy Wars) was just the very first "Department 14" op, and as such constituted just the tip of the iceberg of what was to come later, and what your boy, John L. Hart, derisively and ignorantly called "The Monster Plot".
....
Do you even read the articles and excerpts I post, Michael?If not, why not? Because you consider them "Deep State Fake News"?

I don’t read your ridiculous sentences. It’s painful. You also ask the same stupid questions over and over and over and over again. And you ask questions instead of communicating like a normal person. You don’t really think that anyone believes that you are actually a curious person, do you? I really just think it is some kind of self-stimulation habit of yours and I just don’t pay any attention.

I did notice that you characterized the title of Hart’s work as “Colloqiually known as...”
There is nothing colloquial about it. That is the name of the title.

[Thomas Graves]

I don’t read your ridiculous sentences. It’s painful. You also ask the same stupid questions over and over and over and over again. I really just think it is some kind of self-stimulation habit of your and I just don’t pay any attention.

Michael,

It may come as a big surprise to you, but I didn't ghostwrite Trento's articles, nor Hurt's, nor Bagley's book Spy Wars, nor his follow-up PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars nor Riebling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, etc.

The fact that you not only, as you claim, don't read my sentences, but (apparently) refuse to read even excerpts from the writings of others I've posted on this thread (you know, so that you might engage me in mind-expanding conversation about them), but instead continue to troll-ishly smother my "Monster Plot" thread with grossly over-enlarged (and un-paginated) pages chock-a-block full of the (intentional?) misstatements and misconceptions of John L. Hart that I'm trying to point out to you, could explain why you are (apparently) so doggone "ignorant" about what I'm trying to point out to you (i.e., in this case, the misstatements and misconceptions in Hart's out-of-date ostensible propaganda piece), and therefore are unable to debate me in a normal way, but feel a need to resort to troll-ish behavior, instead.

Is that because you consider everything I've posted on this thread (be t my own sentences or the sentences of other writers) regarding Hart's "Monster Plot" report is just ... "Deep State Fake News"?

--  MWT   

[Michael Clark]

................

You just quote me, with nothing else?

[Thomas Graves]

Sorry about that, Mike.

The following was what I meant to post.

I'm putting it here so you (and the others) won't miss it because if your funny, MP video.

.............


You wrote:

I don’t read your ridiculous sentences. It’s painful. You also ask the same stupid questions over and over and over and over again. I really just think it is some kind of self-stimulation habit of your and I just don’t pay any attention.


.....


Michael,

It may come as a big surprise to you, but I didn't ghostwrite Trento's articles, nor Hurt's, nor Bagley's book Spy Wars, nor his follow-up PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars nor Riebling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, etc.

The fact that you not only, as you claim, don't read my sentences, but (apparently) refuse to read even excerpts from the writings of others I've posted on this thread (you know, so that you might engage me in mind-expanding conversation about them), but instead continue to troll-ishly smother this (mine, btw) "Monster Plot" thread with grossly over-enlarged (and un-paginated) pages chock-a-block full of the (intentional?) misstatements and misconceptions of John L. Hart that I'm trying to point out to you, could explain why you are (apparently) so doggone "ignorant" about ... gasp ... what I'm trying to point out to you (i.e., in this case, the misstatements and misconceptions in Hart's out-of-date ostensible propaganda piece), and therefore are unable to debate me in a normal way, but feel a need to resort to ... gasp ... troll-ish behavior, instead.

Is that because you consider everything I've posted on this thread (be it my own sentences, or the sentences of other writers) regarding Hart's "Monster Plot" report to be just ... "Deep State Fake News"?

--  MWT   

PS  I've already pointed out to you in an earlier post, this thread, how Nosenko didn't "uncover" anyone who either 1) not already suspected, 2) still had access to confidential information, or 3) was still actively working for the KGB/GRu, but you don't seem to care to "debate" me about that?

Why is that, Michael?

[Michael Clark]

Michael,

It may come as a big surprise to you, but I didn't ghostwrite Trento's articles, nor Hurt's, nor Bagley's book Spy Wars, nor his follow-up PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars nor Riebling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, etc.

The fact that you not only, as you claim, don't read my sentences, but (apparently) refuse to read even excerpts from the writings of others I've posted on this thread (you know, so that you might engage me in mind-expanding conversation about them), but instead continue to troll-ishly smother my "Monster Plot" thread with grossly over-enlarged (and un-paginated) pages chock-a-block full of the (intentional?) misstatements and misconceptions of John L. Hart that I'm trying to point out to you, could explain why you are (apparently) so doggone "ignorant" about what I'm trying to point out to you (i.e., in this case, the misstatements and misconceptions in Hart's out-of-date ostensible propaganda piece), and therefore are unable to debate me in a normal way, but feel a need to resort to troll-ish behavior, instead.

Is that because you consider everything I've posted on this thread (be t my own sentences or the sentences of other writers) regarding Hart's "Monster Plot" report is just ... "Deep State Fake News"?

--  MWT   

Thomas, You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here. This is not your thread. You have nothing to teach me, and if you did, you don’t have the means to do it. You don’t address Hart’s work at all and, like you have for years, simply reply...”... but... Bagely”. You have been shilling his work for so long and so hard ho one even hears you.

Bagley’s folly was condemned by his peers, his superiors, professional psychiatrists, historians, the FBI an I could go on.

The Monster Plot is a joke, except the fact that some important people did believe it and they crippled themselves and their organizations and wasted gazillions of dollars and ruined lives. Yet you still believe it. You still believe that it is happening today. That’s fine, but if you feel the need to spread your paranoia far and wide, well, expect to be isolated. And Thomas, you are so nasty that very few people will have, or risk showing, any compassion or understanding to you.

This is not your thread. I will not read your ridicuoulously constructed sentences. I won’t answer the stupid questions that you ask over and over and over and over again.

So make an argument, like a man, like an adult. Put yourself at risk. See what happens. Don’t hide your fragile ego behind inane questions. Drop the dogma. Try your hand with critical arguments and drop the normative verbal tools of a four year old.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is goin on here. This is not your thread. You have nothing to teach me, and if you did, you don’t have the means to do it. You don’t address Hart’s work at all and, lie you have for years simply reply...”... but... Bagely”. You have been shilling his work for so long and so hard ho one even hears you.

Bagley’s folly was condemned by his peers, his superiors, professional psychiatrists, historians, the FBI an I could go on.

The Monster Plot is a joke, except the fact that some important people inasmuch did believ it and they crippled themselves and their organizations and wasted gazillions of dollars and ruined lives. Yet you still believe it. You still believ that it is happening today. That’s fine, but if you feel the need to spread your paranoia far and wide, well, expect to be isolated. And Thomas, you are so nasty that very few people will have, or risk showing, any compassion or understanding to you.

This is not your thread. I will not read your ridicuoulously constructed sentences. I won’t answer the stupid questions that you ask over and over and over and over again.

So make an argument, like a man, like an adult. Put yourself at risk. See what happens. Don’t hide your fragile ego behind inane questions. Drop the dogma. Try your hand with critical arguments and drop the normative verbal tools of a four year old.

Michael,

If you would only read Spy Wars and the other works I provided links to in an earlier post, this thread, you'd realize how truly ... gasp ... full of beans you are.

-- MWT   


PS  I guess I was sorely mistaken --this is your thread, right?

(My bad.)