Newman does not think that the KGB or Cuba had anything to do with the JFK Assassination
Newman is not fully convinced of Golitsyn’s Bona Fide’s, neither is Peter Dale Scott.
Newman never mentions Heuer
Newman never mentions Hart
Newman never mentions the Monster or Master Plot
Michael,
Excellent observations on your part! (Well, some of them, anyway.) But please bear in mind -- Newman didn't say the Cubbies was gonna win the World Series this year, neither.
.....
Front-and-center "stage edge" aside to the payin' audience:
What does it really matter that,
in the context of our little "debate" about "The Monster Plot," that Newman (probably mistakenly) believes that the evil, evil, evil CIA was solely responsible for the assassination of our beloved president -- whom I was lucky enough to see give a commencement address on "education" at San Diego State College [sic] in June of 1963?
.....
I guess you finally got around to watching both parts (or ... ?).
Regardless, none of the "issues" you raise address the overall point, i.e., that Nosenko was a false defector, sent here to detract from and to contradict what Golitsyn was imperfectly trying, due to his having incomplete information, to tell CIA about a couple of moles -- Edward Ellis Smith, and/or someone in SR Division -- George Kisevalter? Richard Kovich? -- whom HE'D helped KGB to recruit), the never-uncovered cipher clerk "Jack" (recruited in 1949 by Sergei Kondrashev), and oodles and gobs of false defectors/triple agents in U.S. Intelligence, not to mention oodles of gobs of moles, false-defectors and triple-agents in the intelligence services of our allies (France's especially).
In other words, in retrospect there really
was something to Golitsyn's "Master Plot," which plot was devised by KGB in 1959, put into effect with the dispatching of GRU colonel Dimitri Polyakov to NYC (the UN) that same year, and "activated" with Polyakov's "volunteering" (after Pekovsky had been brought back to Moscow and "cornered like a bear in its den") to secretly work for the FBI and CIA (but never contributing a dang actionable thang while stationed in the U.S.).
Hey, it may make you feel better vis-a-vis The Assassination that Nosenko's lying about KGB's "not having even interviewed LHO in the USSR" -- i.e., telling CIA what it desperately wanted to hear 7 weeks after the assassination -- was JUST a great "ice breaker" for Nosenko,
whether or not the Ruskies were behind the assassination, don't you agree?
Hmm. Okay.
Just to focus on your boy Heuer for a moment --
A (if not "The") major theme in Heuer's
Five Paths to Judgement is that Nosenko was a true defector, gosh darn it, and that he was unjustly accused of being a false one by Bagley and Angleton due to their foolishly and inexpertly applying five analytical "approaches" to his case, and that, concomitantly, all of the "alleged" triple-agents and false defectors (like Kulak, Cherepanov, Loginov and Kochnov, for example) who had effectively vouched for Nosenko's being a true defector were not triple-agents or false defectors at all, but actually pro-CIA good guys, pure-as-the-driven-snow and
eminently trustworthy sources for CIA and the FBI!
LOL
Maybe you should watch it again (both parts), and take notes this time.
-- MWT
PS You got Newman's "take" on Golitsyn all wrong, Michael.
Newman has no problems with Golitsyn' bona fides
per se.
Maybe you should look up the definition of "bona fides" and watch that bit near the end of Part Two, again.
Ask yourself this question:
How
could Newman question Golitsyn's bona fides
on the one hand, but so totally accept what Bagley had told him (in
Spy Wars and
Spy Master) regarding the implications of Golitsyn's insider revelations
on the other -- as to cause CTer Newman to ... gasp ... actually agree with Bagley that ... gasp ... Nosenko was a false defector, after all?
LOL
Did you intentionally mis-characterize Newman's opinions of Golitsyn, Michael?
If so, why?
Isn't that sort of thing against Forum rules?
