CIA,

Even the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s internal reports cited that Cardinal Siri was elected pope.

The Holy Ghost coming upon his head, during Holy Mass was confirmation of the fact that he was the the most favored choice to succeed Pius XII.

The two key items for a newly elected
Pope to do, are to accept the office and to choose a name.  He did both.

While he was intimidated, made to step aside and even take an oath of silence, he was still the Pope.  

And even the ʝʊdɛօ-masons, who usurped the papacy, knew he was the hidden pope.

How do u reconcile his actions later in his life with him being a true pope?

CIA,

Even the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s internal reports cited that Cardinal Siri was elected pope.

The Holy Ghost coming upon his head, during Holy Mass was confirmation of the fact that he was the the most favored choice to succeed Pius XII.

The two key items for a newly elected
Pope to do, are to accept the office and to choose a name.  He did both.

While he was intimidated, made to step aside and even take an oath of silence, he was still the Pope.  

And even the ʝʊdɛօ-masons, who usurped the papacy, knew he was the hidden pope.

.
Err, I feel like I'm about to jump head-first into a pair of spinning rotary blades, but here goes. Geronimo!
.
Regarding the CIA having reports about Cardinal Siri, it would be more accurate to say that an apostate traditional Catholic named Paul Williams wrote a wretched anti-Catholic book in the early 2000s in which he claimed that the CIA (actually I think it was the State Department) had docuмents that one of their informants had told them that Cardinal Siri had been elected (cf. https://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/ ) Even assuming this statement to be true (more on that later ...), it tells us nothing unless we know the identity and credibility of this "informant", and what sort of access he would have to this information. His claim would likewise have to be tested against the well-known high level of secrecy surrounding every papal conclave, in which each participating cardinal swears under oath never to reveal what happened in that conclave. The "informant", should he ever be identified, would have to explain how one of the cardinals violated this oath to give him this supposed information.
.
However, there is good reason to doubt the existence of these docuмents that the State Department supposedly has. The book that made this claim did not give a very informative footnote to this strange supposed fact. The footnotes for this statement claimed that the docuмent in question had been declassified in 1974 and 1994. Obviously as soon as this book came out a bunch of trads called up the State Department and the FBI asking for these docuмents. They were told they doesn't exist. They even filed Freedom of Information Act requests demanding access, with the same results. This raises the interesting question, if the docuмents exist, why can't anyone see them? Paul Williams does not (as far as I know) have top-secret clearance, so how did he manage to see this? And before someone responds that the government would never release something like that even in response to a FOIA request, I would answer that 1) then how did Williams supposedly see it? and 2) they actually do release docuмents they don't want people to see, but just redact them heavily.
.
Oh, and don't bother to call the author of the book and ask him to explain any of this. Word is that he hangs up the phone on anyone calling to ask him about Cardinal Siri's election. Another thing about this whole story that does not inspire confidence ...
EDIT: formatting problems

For a moment,

Let’s turn the questions around and ask Yeti if he thinks, 5 minutes of “white smoke” over St. Peter’s Square a Vatican maintenance man’s mistake?

And if he believes Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was a canonically elected pope in a disrupted conclave?  

A conclave where the Cardinals were threatened with excommunication AFTER the election, if they spoke of the unusual activities that went on there.

For a moment,

Let’s turn the questions around and ask Yeti if he thinks, 5 minutes of “white smoke” over St. Peter’s Square a Vatican maintenance man’s mistake?

And if he believes Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was a canonically elected pope in a disrupted conclave?  

A conclave where the Cardinals were threatened with excommunication AFTER the election, if they spoke of the unusual activities that went on there.

And it's not honest to reduce the evidence for the Siri thesis to the white smoke.  There's tons of evidence.  No smoking gun, but lots of evidence.

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/cardinal-siri-elections/

The mystery behind the white smoke and the secret post-election meeting of the 1958 Conclave may not have been uncovered if it were not for Mr. Scortesco.  Scortesco was the cousin of two members of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, including the President of the Noble Guard, which was responsible for guarding the conclaves of 1958 and 1963 and making sure that no communication occurred with the outside.  Scortesco revealed the following in a published letter:

Quote

Scortesco: “In the case of John XXIII (1958) and of Paul VI (1963), there were communications with the outside.  It was thus known that there were several ballots in the first conclave [1958] which resulted in the election of Cardinal Tedeschini and in the second [1963], Cardinal Siri.” (Excerpt from the French Newsletter, Introibo, No. 61, July-August-September, 1988, Association Noel Pinot, Angers, France, p. 3.)

Scortesco obtained this shocking information from members of the Noble Guard.  The letter was published in Introibo. And Scortesco was found burned alive in his bed shortly after the publication of this letter.  So Scortesco, prior to being knocked off, revealed that Cardinal Tedeschini, not Antipope John XXIII, was actually elected first in 1958.  And Cardinal Siri, not Antipope Paul VI, was elected first in 1963.

In the letter quoted above, Scortesco also mentioned communication with the “outside.”  His later writings indicate that this communication involved the B’nai Brith (Jєωιѕн Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ).  If communications with the “outside” unlawfully influence a Papal election, this means that such an election is invalid.  The “outside” communication with the Freemasons most probably prevented Tedeschini and Siri from having the free ability to accept their elections, probably by various threats, including death.  The Communists and the Freemasons knew that neither Siri nor Tedeschini would go along with their evil attempts to destroy the Catholic Church; so they had to block their elections.  If the “outside” communication mentioned by Scortesco did influence Tedeschini and Siri from having the free ability to accept their elections, then the subsequent elections of Roncalli [John XXIII] and Montini [Paul VI] were absolutely invalid for that fact alone.

Ok let’s say I accept the Siri thesis and that he was pope until his death. Where is his successor? Do we know any of his cardinals?

He didn't have a successor or Cardinals ... one or two nutjobs on the web notwithstanding.

For a moment,

Let’s turn the questions around and ask Yeti if he thinks, 5 minutes of “white smoke” over St. Peter’s Square a Vatican maintenance man’s mistake?

And if he believes Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was a canonically elected pope in a disrupted conclave?  

A conclave where the Cardinals were threatened with excommunication AFTER the election, if they spoke of the unusual activities that went on there.

.
Yeah, it's hard to say. On the one hand I find the whole story very appealing both from a theological point of view and also from a dramatic point of view, and I would really like to believe it too. But there are so many major problems with the whole thing.
.
To answer your question, yes, I do think the white smoke could have been a mistake. We look at 1950's Italy from a modern American point of view. If we were doing this today (and probably back in 2013 in the election that gave us Pope Satan I), we would have a live video feed aiming at the chimney, and probably streaming video right onto the iPhone of the Monsignor who is stoking the fire. So it's hard for us to imagine how such a mistake could go on for 5 minutes. But in 1950s Italy I don't think it's a stretch.
.
First of all, the combustible material was being used for the first time in this conclave. Instead of the usual straw, they used some chemicals supplied by a pyrotechnics factory. I believe this has been docuмented and proved. So they could easily have used them wrong. It's important to remember that Italians are great artists and musicians, but they are not well-known for being practical or detail-oriented. If Americans had put this on, they would have had several test-runs with these chemicals to make sure they worked before the conclave. In Italy, I really doubt they would have bothered. They would have simply trusted the word of the factory and not bothered to make sure. They just aren't that careful about "minor details" like that, as a culture.
.
Secondly, we assume they would have had walkie-talkies communicating from the outside to the guy at the stove, so that any mistake could have been corrected in half a minute. Because in America that's how we would have coordinated this event. But again, this is Italy. They would have laughed at the idea of having a spotter outside with some electronic gadget, and said they have been electing popes in Rome for two millennia and they didn't need to start worrying now that they can't produce white or black smoke.
.
Thirdly, why would it have taken so long to correct the color of the smoke? Well, there would have to be someone to see the smoke outside, realize the color is wrong, and get word inside. How would anyone outside know the white smoke was in error in the first place? Presumably the cardinals inside would have heard the cheering outside and been puzzled at the cheering at black smoke, realized there might be a mistake about the color of the smoke, and sent a messenger out to check the color. How long he would have had to walk through those corridors is anybody's guess, to get to a place where he could see the smoke, assess the color, and come all the way back to tell them the color was wrong. The Vatican is a gigantic place, and it could possibly be hundreds of yards through corridors from the Sistine Chapel to anywhere where you could see the smoke. When you figure all this together, I don't see any great difficulty with the smoke being the wrong color for that long.

Doing further digging on the information provided by Ladislaus, I'm not sure it helps that much more. The story about Paul Scortesco, who had inside knowledge of the conclave that he published in the early 1980s and was founded burned to death shortly afterwards, seems alarming at first, but it breaks down pretty quickly.
.
First of all, this is the only source I could find for the rumor of Cardinal Siri's election, and there are only three websites that have this information on the internet at all, and they mostly copy from each other. None of them provided any footnotes or links to outside sources in confirmation of any of this information. We're already off to a terrible start, but let's see what we have ...
.
Scortesco claims that the French Cardinals left the conclave to confer with the outside, the freemasons. This was the explosive revelation that supposedly got him murdered (more on that later). It turns out, Cardinal Siri denies Scortesco's claims. From one of the three websites: According to Scortesco, during that conclave Cardinal Tisserant left to meet with representatives of B’nai B’rith, and told them Siri had been elected!  They in turn said that for the new pope to continue as such would immediately precipitate another round of persecutions against the Church. [...] During the 1985 interview at the Cardinal’s palace in Genoa, when Remy and his two companions, Francois Dallais and Monsieur de la Franquerie, asked Siri himself about the above incident, his response was precise and firm.  “No,” he said, “no one left the Conclave.”
.
Um, okay, so the only person who would know about this actually denies it. Let's keep going with the story, as things are just going to keep getting worse:
.
Remy thinks that “if he had not been elected pope, he would have said so” with the same sort of firm, categorical “No,” given the previous question.  He thus concludes that Siri had in fact been elected, but, feeling “bound by the secret”, “took refuge behind it.”
.
What??! Cardinal Siri refuses to answer if he was elected, and Remy takes this to mean that he was elected?? Talk about tendentious reasoning. The argument that "if he had not been elected pope, he would have said so" is completely false, because either answer (yes or no) would have likewise violated the secret of the conclave, as either answer divulges knowledge about what did or didn't happen inside. The only answer Cardinal Siri could have given that would not have divulged information about the conclave would be exactly what he said, that he cannot confirm or deny.
.
Just to conclude, the last quote of Siri that "serious things took place" in the conclave doesn't mean that he was elected or threatened. It can mean literally anything. And that conclave produced Johnny Roncalli as pope(?), so yeah, no duh serious things took place in that conclave! Tell us something we don't know! But to say that "serious things took place" is equivalent to saying or somehow implies "I was elected and threatened to resign" is just silly.
.
Lastly, I am extremely curious about the "suspicious" death of Scortesco, but I couldn't find anything about it on the internet. This by itself makes me question it, as it seems to be lacking in any kind of source. Do we have a police report of this fire? Was his death considered suspicious by the police? Why can't I find any mention of it on the internet, in newspaper articles or anyone else who might have thought it suspicious at the time, for the same reason we do? And did this guy have a habit of smoking cigarettes in bed? Again, Italy has a lot of very old houses that aren't exactly fire safe, and back then lots of people smoked cigarettes. This is now 30 years after the election of Roncalli, so I'm assuming Scortesco is getting up in years by this point. We need a little more evidence than "he was found burned in his bed" to really conclude that he was murdered.

So.....we're still in a state of sedevacante regardless.

But a 30-year vacancy rather than a 60-year vacancy ... if all this is true.