Jump to content
The Education Forum
John Simkin

30 Unavoidable Questions: Yuri Nosenko

Recommended Posts

Completely understandable from the Soviet position, as is Golitsyn, but for different reasons. Golitsyn sowed discord, effectively. Nosenko distanced the Soviets from the guy we mistakenly viewed as the assassin. It’s all distraction from the question at hand - who killed JFK and why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Completely understandable from the Soviet position, as is Golitsyn, but for different reasons. Golitsyn sowed discord, effectively. Nosenko distanced the Soviets from the guy we mistakenly viewed as the assassin. It’s all distraction from the question at hand - who killed JFK and why. 

Paul,

Since you haven't read the book or the PDF in its entirety, all I can say is, "Who brainwashed you, Maestro?"

In other words, "Why do you feel compelled to say what you do about a subject on which you are so ill informed?"  (i.e., Nosenko v. Golitsyn)

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 12:57 PM, David Boylan said:

David,

With all due respect.

Yet another Voice Crying Out From The Wilderness?

A comment from The Peanut Gallery?

A Coded Message From ... The Underground?

--  Tommy  :sun

 

PS  A little background:

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/oct/20/angleton-monster-plot/

Note the link to Bagley's and Deriabin's only ... (gasp) ... twenty unavoidable questions. 

It's clear to me that, after being "exonerated" by Hart, McCoy, and Solie & Co., false defector Yuri Nosenko was bluffing to sue his CIA doubters for slander and libel in order to solidify his so-called bona fides and, concomitantly, to try to discredit Angleton, Bagley, Murphy, and Miler, e al., in the public's mind.

Comparable to a scenario in which Trump demands to be put in front of a grand jury, without a lawyer, so that he might "clear his name," but his lawyers "force" him not to follow through on it, dog gone it.

LOL

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Graves said:

 

David Boylan said:  

Here's some easy reading for you Tommy.

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov-2017/104-10534-10205.pdf

 

 

David,

With all due respect.

Yet another Voice Crying Out From The Wilderness  of Mirrors?

A comment from The Peanut Gallery?

A Coded Message From ... The Underground?

--  Tommy  :sun

 

PS  A little background:

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/oct/20/angleton-monster-plot/

Note the link to Bagley's and Deriabin's list of only ... (gasp) ... twenty unavoidable questions. 

It's clear to me that, after being "exonerated" by your buddy John Hart, (a full-fledged member of Kovich, McCoy, and Solie, Ltd.), false defector Yuri Nosenko was bluffing to sue his CIA doubters for slander and libel in order to solidify his so-called bona fides and, concomitantly, to try to discredit Angleton, Bagley, Murphy, and Miler, e al., in the public's mind.

Comparable to a scenario in which Trump demands to be put in front of a grand jury, without a lawyer, so that he might "clear his name," but his lawyers "force" him not to follow through on it, dog gone it.

LOL

 

 

edited and bumped

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of you Nosenko lovers (LOL) out there, here's the "prologue" to Mister Simkin's friend's long-but-excellent post:

 

  •  
Originally posted April 24, 2009

High CIA officials [like Hart, McCoy, Colby, Solie, Cram, et al.] have repeatedly expressed their total faith in Yuri Nosenko as a genuine defector. You can feel the power of that faith in the following certitudes, all expressed in writing or sworn testimony (and cited in the 2007 book Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries and Deadly Games by Tennent H. Bagley):

• "There is no reason to believe that Nosenko is other than what he has claimed to be."

• "He defected of his own free will and has not sought to deceive us."

• "Anything he has said has been said in good faith."

• If any contradiction appeared in his reporting, it "is in no way indicative of KGB dispatch."

• Any untruths that Nosenko might inadvertently have told were "not at the behest of the KGB."

• "Any claim we [in CIA] may have left to having served in an honorable and dignified profession dictates that we accept the Agency's judgment in this case - that Nosenko was always bona fide and our colleagues [who suspected him] made a terrible mistake."

Many general reasons have been cited to support such conclusions. Here are some of them:

i) As every intelligence professional is aware, neither the KGB nor any other intelligence service would, all other things being equal, send one of its own genuine staff officers as a false defector into enemy hands. The risk would be too great that he might be influenced or pressured there to tell what he really knows - including the very truth the deception operation was intended to hide.

ii) The Soviet regime sentenced Nosenko to death in absentia and several KGB sources have said that the KGB was looking for him with the intent to assassinate him.

iii) Real KGB staffers are said by insiders to have suffered real punishment as a result of his defection or as a result of their misbehavior uncovered by the KGB investigation of it.

iv) After he was cleared of CIA's suspicions, Nosenko remained in the United States for the nearly forty years remaining in his life, became an American citizen, and helped Western operations against the KGB -- things hardly compatible with a motive to deceive.

v) Later defectors from the KGB have testified to the genuineness of his defection and its damage to the Soviet regime (though none has confirmed details of his KGB career).

vi) Repeated CIA reviews and analyses of the case over thirty years have again and again cleared Nosenko of all suspicion.

vii) CIA insiders have stated under oath that Nosenko has told only the truth as best he could and that nothing he has said contradicts what genuine KGB defectors have reported (though in fact much does).

viii) Nosenko named a lot of KGB SCD officers, and exposed many "cases" - never mind that not one of the KGB spies (or "cases") he revealed was (at the time he revealed them) still active, producing NATO-government secrets, and previously unsuspected by Western counterintelligence -- i.e. not one exceeded what the KGB would willingly sacrifice to build credibility of a false defector.

ix) An official KGB document in the so-called "Mitrokhin archive" tells of the (genuine) defector Nosenko's ranting about questions of his rank. (Never mind that this document contradicted Nosenko's own account of his career and never mind that many documents with false or misleading information are known to have been inserted in official KGB files to hide or obscure sensitive information.)

 

BUT THESE ARE ONLY GENERALITIES.

Even if true - which many of the above are not - generalities cannot dispel specific doubts that arise in counterintelligence investigations. It is by their errors of detail, sometimes tiny, that deceivers inadvertently betray their deceit. Given the depth of CIA's faith in Nosenko, one might suppose that it has considered and satisfactorily resolved every such specific doubt. If it has not, its faith rests on shaky ground.

IN FACT, THERE IS NO INDICATION that CIA ever answered the extraordinary and unprecedented number of questions that arose about the defector Yuri Nosenko.

HERE IS A SAMPLE OF THIRTY OF THEM, with references to the pages where they are discussed in Bagley's "Spy Wars." .....

 

 

Emphasis added; to be continued ...

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by that part of human nature which demands that we justify what we have done in order to absolve ourselves of guilt. He was also likely incompetent and dangerously-so.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

Italics are mine...

 

TOP SECRET

13 October 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington

#386 38

1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive  Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of Bagely to a supergrade position.

 2)  I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confessed their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.

3)  I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that  Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone Bagely's  instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that  Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions. 

 

Howard J. Osborn

Director of Security

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by that part of human nature which demands that we justify what we have done in order to absolve ourselves of guilt. He was also likely incompetent and dangerously-so.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

Italics are mine...

 

TOP SECRET

13 October 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington

#386 38

1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive  Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of subject to a supergrade position.

 2)  I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confessed their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.

3)  I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that  Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone Bagely's  instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that  Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions. 

 

Howard J. Osborn

Director of Security

 

 

Question for moderators:  Is the near-simultaneous posting, by one member (in this case Michael Clark), of the same document on three different threads within the rules of the Forum?

Question for Michael:  Will you now "cover" my legitimate question with your same "torture" document post, above, but of course with the notation "I should have mentioned that this document is part of the recent release," as you so covered my rebuttal to you on another Angleton-Nosenko type thread?

 

--  T.G.

 

Shall we have an oh-so-clever "bumping war"?

Bump's in your court.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Two Documents by Leonard McCoy On Nosenko

1978 8 page Cronology of an Effort to Inspire Objective Review of the Nosenko Case

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/2018/104-10095-10126.pdf

1965  58 page conclusion that Nosenko was a true defector 

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/2018/104-10095-10151.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×