Theory-In-Progress

[Larry Hancock]

Tommy I'm in the midst of getting two new books published this year and really don't have time to go back into looking up specifics on these folks - these days I try to limit what I offer that is strictly from "memory"...grin.  I would definitely treat the "illegals" very much in a different category than any double agents and from moles.  Its another area where its too easily to make mistakes by talking about them all in one group, same problem as talking about the "CIA" or the "Mafia" in toto.  Wish I could be more helpful..

[David Andrews]

I suspect that both Golitsyn and Nosenko were false defectors sent to drive Angleton crazy and undermine CIA, because of what was known was known of Angleton's tendencies through Philby and other sources.  It was a long game, and a hard one for Nosenko, but each man would have had a certain amount of confidence that they would not be long imprisoned or executed if they failed, because of US espionage policy. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Once one accepts that it was Golitsyn who was the fly in the ointment it all makes more sense. Angleton got suckered. I don’t wish to argue the point with you Tommy. I’ve read all the material too. I came to a different conclusion than you. There is no way that the Soviets killed our beloved president. Now, if you’d like to examine the scenario that Angleton himself was a mole, that behind the corridors of state power lies supranational entities that defy borders, that the Cold War was a false front for something far more insidious, I’m with you. Seriously, take a look at the chapter from Albarelli’s upcoming book on Otto Skorzeny which Doug Caddy posted a few weeks ago. What’s the point of examining the KGB without the context of CIA deep state operations? Strategy of Tension was and is real.

[Thomas Graves]

3 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I suspect that both Golitsyn and Nosenko were spies sent to drive Angleton crazy and undermine CIA, because of what was known was known of Angleton's tendencies through Philby and other sources.  It was a long game, and a hard one for Nosenko, but each man would have had a certain amount of confidence that they would not be long imprisoned or executed if they failed, because of US espionage policy. 

David,

The only problem with that theory is that, especially during the first few years of his defection, Golitsyn helped CIA uncover several Soviet spies here and abroad that The Agency had not previously suspected (or who were already "burnt out" and, therefore, expendable), whereas Nosenko not only did not do that, but actually said things that tended to protect much-later-uncovered KGB and GRU spies.

-- Tommy 

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Once one accepts that it was Golitsyn who was the fly in the ointment it all makes more sense. Angleton got suckered. I don’t wish to argue the point with you Tommy. I’ve read all the material too. I came to a different conclusion than you. There is no way that the Soviets killed our beloved president. Now, if you’d like to examine the scenario that Angleton himself was a mole, that behind the corridors of state power lies supranational entities that defy borders, that the Cold War was a false front for something far more insidious, I’m with you. Seriously, take a look at the chapter from Albarelli’s upcoming book on Otto Skorzeny which Doug Caddy posted a few weeks ago. What’s the point of examining the KGB without the context of CIA deep state operations? Strategy of Tension was and is real.

Paul,

With all due respect, did you ever read Bagley's book "Spy Wars," or even finish his 35-page PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars" that you found so confusing several months ago?

Rhetorical question: Do you believe that DNC's and Podesta's e-mails were hacked by FSB's "Cozy Bear" and GRU's "Fancy Bear," and given, by one of those two Russian intelligence services in the name of "Guccifer 2.0," to pro-Putin Julian Assange and DNCLeaks to distribute to the American electorate during last year's presidential campaign, or would you rather agree with Binney when he says it was an "inside job" at DNC or the NSA?

And what about Putin's legions of professional trolls in Saint Petersburg, Russia?  (They're still active, you know.)

And ..... ?

Do you still believe, as Obama did in 2008, that the Cold War really, really ended, as far as the Kremlin was concerned, in 1991?

(LOL)

--  Tommy 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/russian-spies-suburban-america

 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Rhetorical question: Do you believe that DNC's and Podesta's e-mails were hacked by FSB's "Cozy Bear" and GRU's "Fancy Bear," and given, by one of those two Russian intelligence services in the name of "Guccifer 2.0," to pro-Putin Julian Assange and DNCLeaks to distribute to the American electorate during last year's presidential campaign, or would you rather agree with Binney when he says it was an "inside job" at DNC or the NSA?

For me, I don't think Russia has anything to do with it.  America always needs some kind of enemy so the Russia thing is just that - stirring things up to have an enemy:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/11/the-fbi-hand-behind-russia-gate/

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

For me, I don't think Russia has anything to do with it.  America always needs some kind of enemy so the Russia thing is just that - stirring things up to have an enemy:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/11/the-fbi-hand-behind-russia-gate/

Michael,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Thank you for sharing it, and thank you for being civil.

Let me ask you a question -- Do you think the FSB and the SVR and the GRU had anything to do with Trump's "beating" Hillary Clinton in the election, or do you think all of the "wounds" she suffered during the campaign were self-inflicted, and even, perhaps, ... deserved?

--  Tommy 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Michael,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Thank you for sharing it, and thank you for being civil.

Let me ask you a question -- Do you think the FSB and the SVR and the GRU had anything to do with Trump's "beating" Hillary Clinton in the election, or do you think all of her "wounds" suffered during the campaign were self-inflicted, and even, perhaps, ... deserved?

--  Tommy 

Not Michael but,  not all self inflicted, deserved...?  She danced with the one(s) who brung her.  She was happy when they moved the CFR HQ closer to the Whitehouse over a perceived shorter drive for instructions.

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Let me ask you a question -- Do you think the FSB and the SVR and the GRU had anything to do with Trump's "beating" Hillary Clinton in the election, or do you think all of the "wounds" she suffered during the campaign were self-inflicted, and even, perhaps, ... deserved?

Here's another article regarding who was really behind Russia gate - the DNC

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/29/the-democratic-money-behind-russia-gate/

My first link above has some pretty good quotes in it as well. 

IMO, America always needed some kind of enemy after WWII as they were practicing brinkmanship. Oliver Stone's Untold History of the US does a good job of covering this. Interestingly enough, the episode about JFK is called "To the Brink"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States

When you watch that episode of the series, you can really feel how the brinkmanship caught up with Kennedy on 11.22.63. I like, too, the way Stone does not gloss over Kennedy's weaknesses like his womanizing and the fact that he was slow on civil rights.  I know Jim DiEugenio champions JFK as this beacon of civil rights. But even Eleanor Roosevelt is quoted in the Stone episode as saying she wished Kennedy had "...less profile and more courage..." which I thought was a funnily accurate quote.  I mean, why didn't Kennedy just go down to the Lincoln Memorial on 8.28.63 instead of waiting to see how it would all turn out?

I know this post is getting off-topic so I'll just weigh in on it - I really don't think the Russians had anything to do with Kennedy's murder.  There has to be some kind of motive to the murder and at least for me, there isn't any real reason for the Russians to want to rub him out, especially after he gave the American University speech 6 months before 11.22.  That speech was played several times to the entire USSR people.

PS - Oliver Stone's series is on Netflix streaming so if you have NFLX you can watch it there.

 

[Thomas Graves]

Michael Walton,

With all due respect, I didn't ask you whether or not you thought the source of funding behind the Steele Dossier was "cricket" (regardless, before the DNC got involved, it was funded by a conservative "Never Trump" Republican), or whether or not you thought the The Dossier should have been taken as seriously by the FBI as it was (we now know that a Trump insider, Papadopoulos, inadvertently confirmed its importance and appropriateness), but rather, in so many words, whether or not you thought Russia's FSB and GRU hacked DNC's and Podesta's e-mails, and gave them (through a Russian calling himself "Guccifer 2.0" or a group of Russians calling itself "Guccifer 2.0") to pro-Putin / anti-Hillary Wikileaks and DNCLeaks to parcel out to the American electorate during the campaign.

It's clear to me (and 17 U.S. intelligence agencies and departments) that that's the case, and, more importantly, that it's an example of a "KGB" active measures counterintelligence operation against us, the same kind of debilitating "warfare" that's been waged non-stop against us and our allies by USSR/Russia since 1921.

.....

--  Tommy 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Here's another article regarding who was really behind Russia gate - the DNC

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/29/the-democratic-money-behind-russia-gate/

 

Oh sure... just like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were behind Watergate.

 

[Michael Walton]

10 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

With all due respect, "Wake up, Neo ... "

?? Not sure what you mean by that.  But as for what's going on currently, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Michael Walton]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh sure... just like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were behind Watergate.

Sandy, your reply makes no sense. But to clarify, there was a lot more going on with the Watergate affair than the official Redford/Hoffman story let on.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/01/rearranging-the-watergate-myth/

https://kennedysandking.com/articles/bob-woodward

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ok, just to confine ourselves to the immediate issue. IMO, To use a baseball analogy,   any theory that posits that the Soviets killed JFK, (given the relations between the 2 powers at that time) is pretty far out there in a ballpark with a very spacious right field.

There's no motive.

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Michael Walton]

18 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ok, just to confine ourselves to the immediate issue. IMO, To use a baseball analogy,   any theory that posits that the Soviets killed JFK, (given the relations between the 2 powers at that time) is pretty far out there in a ballpark with a very spacious right field.

There's no motive.

That's what I said above and agree with your assessment.