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

[Thomas Graves]

It’s going to be a while. I am transcribing it.

Oh, goodie!

In the meantime, while 24 of us are still waiting, is it okay if we read Tennent H. Bagley's excellent 35-page PDF, Ghosts of the Spy Wars, in which he mentions your boy Hart's brother-in-arms, Leonard MCCoy, twenty-five times?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

Have you read it yet, btw?

Personal question:

If not, why not? Too darn busy reading Hart's totally wrong and CIA-undermining 186-page The Monster Plot?

Pity that.

-- MWT 

PS  Did you know that Hart's wife was also CIA, and that ...

https://archive.org/details/nsia-CIAPaisleyJohnA

[Michael Clark]

....

If not, why not? Too darn busy reading Hart's totally wrong and CIA-undermining 186-page The Monster Plot?

.....

-- MWT 

How do you know that Hart is “Totally Wrong” if you have not read his work?

[Thomas Graves]

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 ...

[Michael Clark]

Michael,

........

Thomas. Don’t you get it? Do you understand that there are those that who want to absorb information, and then there a fan-boys?

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas. Don’t you get it? Do you understand that there are those that who want to absorb information, and then there a fan-boys?

Michael,

Unfortunately, there's alway's a ready supply of spiteful, under-endowed, gullible wishful-thinkers (like Heuer, McCoy, Hart, and Solie) who are more than happy to be brainwashed by someone like Yuri Nosenko or James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio, but you're smarter than that, aren't you, so why ally yourself with those losers?

Btw, why are so silent about John Newman's and Peter Dale Scott's epiphanies, compliments of Bagley's Spy Wars and Spy Master, about the true nature of Yuri Nosenko's "bona fides"?

Is it something that you've obliterated from your memory because it's just too doggone painful to contemplate?

Do you really think Bagley so thoroughly fooled Newman as to enable Newman to unwittingly fool Scott into believing Nosenko was a false defector, after all?

Is it something that you simply refuse to talk about in public?

-- MWT 

[Michael Clark]

Michael,

Unfortunately, there's alway's a ready supply of spiteful, under-endowed, gullible wishful-thinkers (like Heuer, McCoy, Hart, and Solie) who are more than happy to be brainwashed by someone like Yuri Nosenko or James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio, but you're smarter than that, aren't you, so why ally yourself with those losers?

Btw, why are so silent about John Newman's and Peter Dale Scott's epiphanies, compliments of Bagley's Spy Wars and Spy Master, about the true nature of Yuri Nosenko's "bona fides"?

Is it something that you've obliterated from your memory because it's just too doggone painful to contemplate?

Do you really think Bagley so thoroughly fooled Newman as to enable Newman to unwittingly fool Scott into believing Nosenko was a false defector, after all?

Is it something that you simply refuse to talk about in public?

-- MWT 

Thomas, Don’t you get that When it comes to dealing with you, I don’t answer questions, I ask them? Don’t you see that you have set-up this game? Do you think anyone should answer your endless, inane questions, when you answer none?

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, Don’t you get that When it comes to dealing with you, I don’t answer questions, I ask them? Don’t you see that you have set-up this game? Do you think anyone should answer your endless, inane questions, when you answer none?

Michael,

Edit: Please freshen my memory -- What specific questions about Nosenko and/or the other KGB/GRU false defectors and triple-agents would you like to ask me?

Edit:  What specific questions of yours have I refused to answer?  (That sounds like a spurious accusation on your part, but maybe I've forgotten or overlooked something.)

.......

How can you ask your questions (what questions?) in good faith, and continue to post your de facto KGB-approved articles and "documents," when you realize (as you must surely realize by now) that you neither know what the heck you're talking about nor what you're (unwittingly I'm pretty sure) propagandizing for?

Statement:  If you don't answer questions but only ask them, doesn't that mark you as a "newbie," a stigma that you tried to disassociate yourself from as quickly as possible at the EF about two years ago?

Question:  How do you reconcile, in your own mind, Bagley's, Newman's and Scott's "take" on Nosenko with your own (evidently ongoing) overall hatred/despising/disbelieving of Bagley and anything CIA (other than Kovich, Kisevalter, McCoy, Hart, Solie, Cram, Colby, Agee, and their ilk, of course)?

Question:  If you aren't willing to answer my questions, why, then, do you keep chiming in on my threads and replying to my posts in others? 

To ask questions?  (What questions?)

To demand that I refute something that some spiteful and/or under-endowed CIA officer wrote at least 20 years before Bagley's Spy Wars was published?

To "educate" newbies before I have a chance to "get to" them with my sharing of evil, evil, evil Bagley-and-Angleton's "world view"?

LOL

Why in the world should I knock myself out doing that, when you can find the same darn answers I would give you in "Spy Wars," the 2007 book written by the first guy to interview "walk in" Nosenko in Geneva in 1962 (before probable mole and fluent Russian speaker George Kisevalter barged in to "help" Bagley, even though Golitsyn spoke good English, Bagley understood Russian, and they could communicate with each other just fine), who continued interviewing Nosenko for about five days in Geneva, who later became chief of Soviet Russia Division's Counterintelligence Section, and who not only met with and helped Nosenko "defect" to the U.S. in January 1964, but interrogated (without torturing -- sorry) Nosenko for three years in the U.S., who was, importantly given access to Golitsyn's top-secret file by none other than James Angleton, and who, most importantly, was smart enough and experienced enough to realize, upon reading said file, that there was something very fishy, indeed, about Nosenko's strangely Golitsyn-overlapping but Golitsyn-contradicting ... narrative?

I'm talking about Tennent H. Bagley, of course.  His book 2007 book Spy Wars is very detailed and very well annotated and sourced, so I'm sure that it can answer all of your questions to your probable dissatisfaction, and do so even better than I could -- even though my answers would be based 100 per cent on his book.

--  MWT   


PS  PDS's grudging "confession" come at 34:48, iirc.

PPS  The sixty-four thousand dollar question:  Why the heck should I continue to even communicate with you, knowing, from past experience, that the wisdom and knowledge I try to impart to you more than likely will go "in one ear and out the other"?

That is if it even gets that far.

Hmm?

[Michael Clark]

Michael,....

That is if it even gets that far.

Hmm?

Thomas,

Don’t you realize that if one wants or hear from you all they have to do is read Tenant Bagely? Don’t you see that you have kind made yourself irrelevant, and made the name “Bagely” the last name that anyone wants to hear ever again?