Post by Ben HolmesOn Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:39:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben HolmesOn Thu, 25 Nov 2021 09:12:48 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank SienzantPost by Ben HolmesOn Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:10:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank SienzantOn Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:08:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben HolmesOn Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:22:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by BudPost by Ben HolmesOn Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:46:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank SienzantPost by Ben HolmesOn Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank SienzantPost by Ben HolmesFirst, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony,
unrefuted, shows this... from several people who where in a position
to know. And yes, he was certainly "low level."
You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll
claim I already know it or some such nonsense.
This outright lie by Huckster Sienzant is one that I'm happy to shove
down his throat... this is the post he claims I'd never post.
Straw man logical fallacy. I claimed you’d never post the evidence
AND be willing to discuss it. We’ll see.
Watch folks, as Huckster is PROVEN to be a liar. There's no
"strawman" issue at all - I QUOTED YOUR EXACT WORDS.
You quoted my exact words ("You'll never cite the evidence and be
willing to discuss it"). but then rephrased it as "this is the post he
claims I'd never post".
You're lying again, Huckster ... I was **NOT** rephrasing your
statement... it cannot even be read that way.
Yes you did, and yes it can.
*******************************************************
"You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll
claim I already know it or some such nonsense."
*******************************************************
Cite his original words, and demonstrate that the above quote isn't
his exact words.
Change of subject.
Calling yourself a liar now, aren't you Huckster!
I deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.
And, knowing that if I deleted it once, it must be the correct thing
to do, I deleted Huckster's whining again.
The simple FACT is that I did EXACTLY what Huckster claimed I
wouldn't.
And now he can't retract that lie.
Ben STILL NOT discussing the evidence.
Changing the topic won't work, Huckster.
No need to put your spin on it - everyone can read the thread.
Post by Hank SienzantPost by Ben HolmesYou know by now that this is merely a logical fallacy that I'll delete
and not even bother to read...
Your assertions have no basis in fact.
Your assertions have no basis in fact.
You’re still avoiding ...
You're still avoiding...
What Ben posted is above.
What I posted and Ben avoided is below.
Post by Ben HolmesOn Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Hank SienzantPost by Ben HolmesFirst, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony,
unrefuted, shows this... from several people who where in a position
to know. And yes, he was certainly "low level."
You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll
claim I already know it or some such nonsense.
This outright lie by Huckster Sienzant is one that I'm happy to shove
down his throat... this is the post he claims I'd never post.
Straw man logical fallacy. I claimed you’d never post the evidence
AND be willing to discuss it. We’ll see.
Watch folks, as Huckster is PROVEN to be a liar. There's no
"strawman" issue at all - I QUOTED YOUR EXACT WORDS.
You quoted my exact words ("You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it"). but then rephrased it as "this is the post he claims I'd never post".
Leaving off everything from the "and" makes it a straw man argument.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesAnd as long as he can refrain from logical fallacies, I can answer any
attempted rebuttal he cares to make.
Amusingly, he had nothing to say here, even though he'd just claimed
I'd offered a strawman argument.
You did just offer a strawman argument by leaving off the second half of my compound sentence.
Post by Ben HolmesSo Huckster simply lied when he labeled it a strawman...
You can't get there from here unless you make stuff up. You're making stuff up.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesI said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=5
So another story that goes nowhere. A son of somebody claims to have
overheard that Oswald was a CIA agent.
Tut tut tut, Huckster... I JUST OFFERED THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU CLAIMED
I WOULDN'T POST.
A recollection from decades after the fact of a hearsay statement isn't evidence and isn't admissible. There's a difference. A big difference.
But feel free to offer hearsay if that's all you got. I'll feel free to point out you got nothing.
Post by Ben HolmesYour claim that it "goes nowhere" is nonsensical - it doen't mean
anything.
It still goes nowhere. Where is this evidence that this ever happened? It's a story from decades after the fact.
Post by Ben HolmesThe very next word is something you didn’t do: Verify.
You clearly weren't reading... the comment was that the HSCA should
"verify" this statement of Wilcott - WHICH THEY DID!!! By going to
the person involved and trying to get him to testify.
The person involved was dead, Ben. You didn't read very carefully. The only making a statement is the son of the person involved. And his recollection of a conversation he was not a party to is hearsay, which is not evidence. There's a difference between hearsay and evidence.
Post by Ben HolmesNow Huckster - PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT YOU DIDN'T READ THIS CORRECTLY!
ADMIT THAT THE HSCA DID INDEED "VERIFY."
How could they verify it? The person that needed to verify it was dead. This video explains the concept well:
http://youtu.be/z9SMUzj-_4Q
Post by Ben HolmesOr run like the coward you are...
If I'm running, it's only because I'm chasing you and hitting you over the head with the facts.
Fact: Hearsay is not evidence. In most cases - with certain limited exceptions - it's not allowed in court.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben Holmes(Notice the reason given for refusal to testify... And like other
evidence for intimidation - this will be ignored by Huckster as well.)
The reason is because conspiracy theorists were claiming witnesses
were being killed off.
Speculation on your part. You've been given *NO* information on which
to base that - so you're lying.
You're offering your SPECULATION as facts.
You are denying conspiracy theorists, starting with Penn Jones in the 1960s, have been claiming witnesses were being eradicated because they knew too much?
Hilarious! There have been multiple books on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Dead-Witnesses-Craig-Roberts/dp/1494976145
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Belzer+hit+list&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
https://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Grief-Penn-Jr-Jones/dp/B000M7AUL0 (see the back page, second of three images of book)
Here's a conspiracy giving a summary of the claims: https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKdeaths.htm
The HSCA did a study of the claim and found no evidence to support it.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0229b.htm
Post by Ben HolmesBut there is no truth to that claim.
WHAT "CLAIM?" **YOU** ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO MADE A SPECULATIVE CLAIM!!
The claim the son made that he withheld the information because he was afraid of being killed.
Did you forget what you cited already or are you just pretending to forget?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=5
"Son refuses to testify since ... witnesses are still dying."
You told us to pay special attention to that reason. Did you foret that too?
Post by Ben HolmesHowever the son claimed to believe it,
BELIEVE ***WHAT***???
Gosh, you get awfully forgetful when you don't wish to discuss you own claim:
You wrote: "(Notice the reason given for refusal to testify... And like other
evidence for intimidation - this will be ignored by Huckster as well.)"
Now you don't understand references to his stated reason for his refusal to testify -- which you brought up!
Post by Ben HolmesYou've made one long argument based on logical fallacies and lies on
your part. Watch folks, as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite any
evidence for his claim that the son was basing his belief on
"conspiracy theorists."
He can't... he's lying.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.
The son referenced "Witnesses still dying" as his reason. Conspiracy theorists (specifically Penn Jones) invented that and between the assassination and the HSCA, it is mentioned in the conspiracy literature plenty of times. If he heard about it, he heard about it from conspiracy theorists.
Post by Ben Holmesand gave that reason as his reason to not testify.
Nothing about what "conspiracy theorists" were saying. Indeed, no
evidence WHATSOEVER that the son had ever read any book on the topic.
You simply invented this out of whole cloth...
Doesn't matter if he read a book or not. Maybe he read a review of a book. Maybe he saw an interview with a conspiracy author. Precsiely where he got the knowledge of the claim isn't worth discussing. The fact of the matter is conspiracy theorists invented the "witnesses are being killed" meme and conspiracy theorists are keeping it alive. And the son referenced hearing of it: "Witnesses are still dying".
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben Holmeshttps://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=28
No, let’s start on page 7 here; https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=34
Sorry moron, I already cited that.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. And a falsehood, as you cited a different page entirely.
Post by Ben HolmesThe cite I'm giving now is not to his rambling explanation, BUT TO HIS
SWORN TESTIMONY.
His sworn testimony is of the hearsay he heard. That doesn't make it more reliable or more correct.
Post by Ben HolmesNotice folks, that I've provided what Huckster said I'd never do, and
he's not *YET* offered a retraction of his lie.
Your strawman is still a logical fallacy.
Post by Ben Holmes(I offer that as a prediction - watch! Even though Huckster *KNOWS* I
PREDICTED THIS - he won't prove me wrong.)
And that's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Post by Ben Holmeshttps://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=34
“I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with
the agency… Then, as time went on, I began to hear more things.”
So Wilcott has no personal knowledge. He is passing along hearsay.
But it gets worse for you.
Sorry stupid... I *NEVER* STATED THAT WILCOTT HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. If you admit Wilcott had no personal knowledge, and was just passing along rumors he heard, you just lost the entire reason you originally gave for citing Wilcott.
"First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA. Sworn testimony, unrefuted, shows this..."
Hearsay, whether sworn or unsworn, isn't evidence.
Post by Ben HolmesIt's still acceptable testimony.
It would never be allowed in court. It's testimony of *hearsay*. If you believed it would be allowable, please cite the exception to the rule you believe this hearsay would fall under.
Post by Ben HolmesAnd his assertions about the case officer - you've simply tucked your
head in the sand and refused to hear.
No, I read the entire document.
Post by Ben HolmesWatch folks, as Huckster CANNOT ADMIT that the case officer
information had no hint of "rumor" attached to it.
Hearsay is hearsay, Ben. Whether a case officer said it or some low-level CIA employee said it.
Post by Ben HolmesPage 20: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=47
Q: So it is your testimony that … [CIA] people … made references to Oswald being an agent, is that correct?
A: Yes, in a speculative manner.
So speculative hearsay. Even the people speculating about this had no knowledge.
Once again, you're a liar.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.
Post by Ben HolmesWilcott clearly differentiated people - some of whom he thought had
actual knowledge...
It doesn't matter what he thought. Hearsay is still hearsay. You really have no clue what evidence is nor how to assess it.
Post by Ben HolmesSuch as the case officer who referred to Oswald in connection with
money being withdrawn.
This is months after Oswald was dead and buried. Where was the money going, and for what? It couldn't be to pay off Oswald to keep quite or anything of the like.
But the CIA was still actively following up leads on the assassination even months later. Why wouldn't there be a CIA section devoted to the investigation of Oswald that needed to cover additional expenses?
Post by Ben HolmesTell us Huckster - do you think you can convince people with lies?
You apparently believe you can do that. You certainly cite enough Mark Lane mistruths to choke a horse.
Post by Ben HolmesDo you think people who actually click on the links and read the
primary material will come to the same conclusions that you are
pretending you did?
Begged questions twice over and poisoning the well in addition.
Post by Ben HolmesAnd there’s more!
Page 37: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=64
Twice more on this page alone, he affirms all he has is hearsay, and
twice more he references it as speculation from the people passing it
along.
“Along those lines they said … and this was more in the speculative realm.”
“How much exact knowledge they had it is impossible for me to say. I
believe it was more in a speculative realm.”
In other words, Wilcott is passing along speculative hearsay he heard.
You're continuing to lie about Wilcott's testimony... while he
certainly did believe that he heard much in the way of speculation,
you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge when he was hearing things from
people who *knew.*
In his judgment they were people who knew. We don't know they knew. We only know his judgment of the hearsay.
That's not sufficient to turn hearsay into evidence. And everything he heard and testified to is hearsay.
You should learn the difference between hearsay and direct evidence.
Post by Ben HolmesThat's known as a lie of omission.
That's know as mischaracterizing what I saw. A straw man argument.
Post by Ben HolmesThat makes you a proven liar.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.
Post by Ben HolmesThere’s a word in English that describes this quite well. That word is
RUMOR.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rumor
There's a word in English that describes this quite well. That word
is LIAR.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liar
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.
A rumor he heard, whether he believed it or not, is still a rumor.
You need to find the people who had actual knowledge and get them to testify under oath. Until you do, this claim of yours goes nowhere.
Post by Ben HolmesI thought you don’t deal in speculation.
Nope... no need to. But you're intentionally twisting the facts
here... and you *KNOW* you're doing so.
Poisoning the well logical fallacy. Begged question logical fallacy.
Post by Ben HolmesHence your conflation of people who Wilcott thought were simply
speculating, and those who clearly weren't.
"Clearly weren't"? Explain how you determined that. Explain how mention of Oswald's name in connection with a withdrawal of money months after Oswald was dead means Oswald was a CIA asset.
You won't. You probably will delete all of my arguments with a LFD notation and pretend you don't have to rebut any of this. But you said you'd be able to.
Post by Ben Holmes(And later on, with your conflation of how 201 files were used, and
the CI/SIG's use of 201 files.)
The evidence establishes Egerter opened a 201 file on Oswald in December of 1960, only after his defection, and only upon a State Department request for information on certain named individuals, one of whom was Oswald. It is not evidence Oswald was an asset. Egerter herself said she had no knowledge that any of the people on the list had any connection with the CIA as an employee or asset.
Post by Ben HolmesBut here you are more than willing to pass along this speculative
hearsay and pretend it’s evidence. It’s not.
You pretend that everything Wilcott said was "speculative hearsay."
No. I'm saying none of what Wilcott heard was evidence. It's all hearsay. And Wilcott himself was the one who labelled it speculative. I didn't do that.
But he you are pretending any of the hearsay Wilcott heard is evidence. It's not. It's hearsay.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims with evidence. When do you intend to start?
Post by Ben HolmesAnd the page preceding your cited page puts into context what
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=54
Q: There is shop talk, speculation… the CIA is somehow connected with it.
A: Well, I believed it to be a little more than speculation….
So Wilcott is reporting speculative hearsay and he’s reporting his
conclusion that there might be some truth in the rumors he heard.
That’s not evidence. That’s a report of a rumor and a belief in a
rumor. You will delete this and refuse to discuss it. You will more
than likely label it a logical fallacy and call me names. But you
won’t discuss why you think this rumor is worthy of belief.
That you keep doing this shows how desperate you're getting.
What, quoting their exact testimony that destroys your claims shows I'm desperate?
You have a 'unique' way of looking at the world, Ben.
Post by Ben HolmesIf you had the power, Wilcott & Egerter's testimony would disappear.
I provided the link to the actual testimony, not you. I quoted extensively from it. Not you. Their full testimony helps my arguments, not yours. That's why you didn't link to their direct testimony, but provided only excerpts.
Post by Ben HolmesBut notice... I provided EXACTLY what you said I couldn't do.
I said "You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it."
Thus far, you've discussed Wilcott's hearsay testimony and called me names.
You have yet to cite and discuss any evidence.
Post by Ben HolmesAnd I've answered EVERY LOGICAL FALLACY AND LIE that you've posted
here.
It's time for **YOU** to admit you lied.
Begged questions and ad hominems are not rebuttals, Ben. Nor are they discussions of evidence.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesEgerter, I discuss below in a post that has been posted many times
Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
Three years before the Kennedy assassination,
That's 1960, specifically December of 1960. Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in 1959.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Defection_to_the_Soviet_Union
"Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union just before he turned 20 in October 1959."
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesLee Harvey Oswald was
being investigated by the CIA's Special Investigations Group (SIG), a
branch of the agency's Counter-Intelligence (CI) division, headed by
James Angleton between 1954 and 1974.
A 201 file on Oswald was opened in December of 1960 by Egerter because she was fulfilling a request from the State Department.
A 201 file, as explained by Egerter, is simply a catch-all file. It's opened on a individual when the CIA has more than one document on that person.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=13&search=Egerter
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesThis was confirmed in the House
Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) questioning of Ann Egerter,
a member of Angleton's staff who opened the CIA file on Lee Harvey
Oswald (a "201 file" in US intel lingo) in December of 1960.
Based on a State Department request. That's explained here by Egerter.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=26&search=Egerter
She explains her thought process was it was forwarded to the CI/SIG office because Oswald (and the others on the State Department request) might be potential Soviet Agents, not that they were CIA employees or assets:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=27&search=Egerter
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesThe kicker is that the CI/SIG division is only tasked with
investigating current CIA agents who are potential security risks.
No, the CI/SIG In the above stands for “Counter Intelligence/Special
Investigative Group”.
Counter Intelligence (investigating CIA agents) was only part of
what they did. They also did Special Investigations. I assume you can
read the name of the group.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=11&search=Egerter
It's good that you know more than someone who provably worked in
CI/SIG...
I can read. Can you?
Post by Ben HolmesNow, can you cite for your claim?
Your claim is that CI/SIG did "special investigations" on
non-employees... Let's see your citation for that claim.
That's a straw man argument. I'm not claiming the CIA did a special investigation on Oswald in December of 1960. I'm stating Egerter opened a 201 file on Oswald based on a State Department request, and she thought Oswald (and the others on the request) might be potential Soviet agents, not that they were agency employees or agency assets.
She specifically disavowed any knowledge of an Agency connection here with Oswald here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=31&search=Egerter
Q: Is Lee Harvey Oswald's name on the list?
A: Yes.
Q: ... were any of the individuals on this list employees of the Centrall Intelligence Agency?
A: I don't think any were employed by the Agency... to the best of my knowledge anyway.
Q: Were any of them agents, assets or sources of the CIA?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Post by Ben HolmesLet's compare it to Egerter's EXPLICIT testimony.
(I predict that Huckster has *NO* citations...)
You'd be wrong. Again.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesEgerter said her office was known within the CIA as "the office that
spied on spies." She further elaborated on SIG as the entity that
undertook "investigations of agency employees where there was an
indication of espionage."
Because CIA agents are forbidden to disclose the identity of any other
agents, Oswald's true occupation could only be discerned through
indirect questions directed at Egerter. One HSCA interviewer asked her
what the purpose of the CI/SIG was within the agency. Through this
line of questioning, it can be discerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was
seen in 1960 as a security risk,
Gee, I wonder why the CIA might consider him a security risk?
"investigations of agency employees..."
You can repeat that until the cows come home, but you're taking her testimony out of context.
Here she gives an example of why a 201 file might be opened on a non-employee:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=23&search=Egerter
Q: Could you give other examples of situations which would prompt you to open a 201 file?
A: We received requests from outside agencies for information on an individual...That would be another case for opening up the file. It might not have been an agency employee...It might have been just an individual the other agency was interested in.
Ben to ignore the above and call it a logical fallacy. He certainly won't admit it destroys his argument that Egerter would only open 201 files on agency employees.
Post by Ben HolmesRun coward... RUN!!!
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?
Post by Ben HolmesMaybe it had something to do with his defection to Russia? You think
that might have something to do with opening a file in 1960, after he
defected?
As an agency employee, sure.
No, Egerter clearly says there are other reasons for opening the file that didn't involve agency employees.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=23&search=Egerter
Q: Could you give other examples of situations which would prompt you to open a 201 file?
A: We received requests from outside agencies for information on an individual...That would be another case for opening up the file. It might not have been an agency employee...It might have been just an individual the other agency was interested in.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben Holmesmaking him easy to burn, for example,
as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.
Calls for speculation. Move to strike.
Post by Ben HolmesOr making him the real assassin of Kennedy after Kennedy went by his
place of employment in an open convertible at a slow speed.
Begging the question.
Hilarious. Only if we ignore or try to exclude all the evidence pointing to Oswald as the shooter.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesInterviewer: "Please correct me if I'm wrong … it seems that the
purpose of CI/SIG was very limited and that limited purpose was to
investigate agency employees who for some reason were under
suspicion."
Egerter: "That is correct."
Notice Huckster's absolute silence here... his entire world has just
been upended, and he doesn't want to call any attention to this
section of sworn testimony.
And Egerter delved into this deeper later in the questioning and explained there were other reasons she would open a 201 file:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=23&search=Egerter
Q: Could you give other examples of situations which would prompt you to open a 201 file?
A: We received requests from outside agencies for information on an individual...That would be another case for opening up the file. It might not have been an agency employee...It might have been just an individual the other agency was interested in.
Post by Ben HolmesBecause it proves him a liar.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?
Post by Ben HolmesBut, of course, we'll wait for Huckster to provide citations for his
claim that Egerter was lying here... and that they did "special
investigations" on non-employees.
I never claimed she was lying. That's your straw man. I never said they did special investigations on non-employees. I do claim Egerter gave an example of when they might open a 201 file on a non-employee which I will repeat for your benefit a third time in this post:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=23&search=Egerter
Q: Could you give other examples of situations which would prompt you to open a 201 file?
A: We received requests from outside agencies for information on an individual...That would be another case for opening up the file. It might not have been an agency employee...It might have been just an individual the other agency was interested in.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesInterviewer: "When a 201 file is opened, does that mean that whoever
opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual,
or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may
present a counterintelligence risk?"
Egerter: "Well, in general, I would say that would be correct."
Interviewer: "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?"
Egerter: "No, I can't think of one."
“the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?”
The *EMPLOYEE* presenting a counterintelligence risk...
You just changed the wording of the question. And you're ignoring her testimony elsewhere in the same session.
Post by Ben HolmesYou can lie, coward... but I'm just going to shove it down your
throat.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?
Post by Ben HolmesAt the time this file was opened, it was after Oswald had defected
to Russia.
Speculation on your part... begging the question.
No, you yourself admit the file was opened in 1960: "Three years before the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was
being investigated by the CIA's Special Investigations Group..." When I do the math (please check my work) I get
1963 - 3 = 1960.
Oswald defected in October of 1959. It's neither speculation nor a begging of the question.
It's a fact you dislike and cannot explain away.
Post by Ben HolmesMaybe Ben can explain why, if Oswald was an employee of the CIA as
Wilcott reported of the rumors he heard, or just an asset as Ben
labels him above, why they didn’t open a file on him BEFORE he became
an employee/asset.
This is another logical fallacy on Huckster's part. There's no need
to answer speculation that Huckster cannot cite for.
You label it speculation because you can't answer it. Why did they wait until Decemeber of 1960 to open a 201 file on Oswald, if he was an employee or asset before his defection?
Post by Ben HolmesI don’t know much about CIA hiring practices, but I was responsible
for hiring people in some of prior positions I had. I’m retired at
present.
Non sequitur.
Only because you can't deal with real-world practices.
Post by Ben HolmesI assume the CIA might want to check into your background and
affiliations and associations and such before they hire you as an
employee or bring you on as an “asset”.
Of course! Show that this didn't happen. You're merely speculating
that it didn't.
No, Ben. I can't show the CIA didn't do something. That's a shifting of the burden of proof. You need to show the evidence they did hire Oswald and if so, explain why they didn't open a 201 file on him until December of 1960, when Oswald was already in Russia for 14 months.
Post by Ben HolmesI know I spoke with people
used as references when I was considering hiring someone. There might
even be a face-to-face interview or two (Zoom wasn’t a thing back in
1960) or when I was responsible for hiring. I did that as well,
interviewing people F-2-F I was considering hiring.
Non sequitur.
Only because you can't deal with real-world practices.
Post by Ben HolmesBut they open this file when Oswald is already in Russia?
One file shows that other files are impossible???
What a SILLY notion!
You haven't show any evidence of other files. You're speculating there are other files. We'll await your evidence that you said you'd shove down my throat:
==
You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it. You'll claim I already know it or some such nonsense.
This outright lie by Huckster Sienzant is one that I'm happy to shove down his throat... this is the post he claims I'd never post.
==
Post by Ben HolmesThe CIA is a bit smarter than that...
Show us the evidence. Don't speculate about the evidence.
Post by Ben HolmesThat tells me they are worried
about what secrets Oswald might know and tell.
Your speculation isn't evidence.
I remind you the 201 file was opened by Egerter after she received a request for information from the State Department on Oswald and others.
Post by Ben HolmesI do know all the
Marine call signs Oswald had knowledge of were changed after his
defection.
Tell us why this wouldn't be the case if Oswald were an agent SENT to
Russia as a false defector.
No, you need to establish Oswald was an agent sent to Russia as a false defector before you ask me to speculate on the reasons they would do that.
Post by Ben HolmesIf you can't, then you've proven your argument nonsense.
Get busy!
Not taking homework assignments from you, Ben. This is something you need to establish. I don't need to argue for or against an unproven speculation.
Post by Ben HolmesThat also tells me he wasn’t an employee or an asset at the
he defected.
If you can't figure out why call signs wouldn't be changed after a
false defection - you're even more stupid than you sound.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?
Post by Ben HolmesI don't even need to argue this... most intelligent people can
immediately figure it out on their own.
You say that because you cannot establish your speculation is true.
Post by Ben HolmesIf he was, there should be a file opened on him sometime
before his defection.
Of course. Show us how it's in the CIA's interest to release such a
file.
Shifting the burden of proof, as you often do. I don't need to show such a file never existed. You need to show it did exist. You haven't.
And don't pretend we haven't understood what you're doing. You're now shifing the proof of Oswald's supposed Agency employment status from the 201 file, which the evidence shows has no bearing on his employment status, to other unseen files you are speculating existed and would show his employment status.
Post by Ben HolmesOr run away, as I expect you will.
The real truth is you can't support your claims that *evidence* shows Oswald was a CIA asset of any kind.
You're reduced now to speculating that there might have been some files, that we have not seen, that would establish that if they ever existed and were made public.
That's as far from proof as one can get.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben Holmeshttp://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
So two individuals, both provably CIA, and neither of whom were known
to each other as far as I know - provided sworn testimony supporting
the statement that Oswald was CIA connected.
One reported rumors
You're lying again, Huckster. The case officer who withdrew money for
"Oswald" or the "Oswald project" wasn't a "rumor."
The case officer didn't specify what the Oswald Project was. Any suppositions and speculations about what that implied is left to Wilcott and you.
Post by Ben HolmesYou've evaded that... time and time again.
I've explained it over and over. Hearsay is hearsay. Wilcott's conclusions about what the hearsay implied are not evidence.
Post by Ben Holmeshe heard that Oswald was a CIA employee and conclusions he reached
about those rumors he heard. He admitted he had no way of verifying
the rumors he heard, but stated he was reporting them as a good
citizen because he felt they should be investigated.
Don't you just HATE the fact that I did what you claimed I couldn't
do?
You offered no evidence Oswald was a CIA employee. You've been reduced to speculating there might be other files that the CIA withheld that establish that.
You're done here.
Post by Ben HolmesAnn Egerter was interviewed almost two decades after she created the
file and didn’t recall a lot about it.
She recalled facts you've run from... facts that demolish your
argument and support my statements.
The only one running from the facts is you.
Post by Ben HolmesWhat more is needed?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=5&search=Egerter
Huckster is desperately trying to imply that something found there
will change what I quoted.
Everything found there changes what you quoted out of context.
Post by Ben Holmeshttps://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=11&search=Egerter
It is opened where several documents have accumulated on the same
individual, a 201 file only indicates an interest in the individual,
it does not indicate their status as an employee or asset. This 201
file on Oswald was opened in 1960, after his defection, and initially
was limited to newspaper clippings of his defection.
While the CIA as a whole certainly had reasons for a "201" file - the
CI/SIG was a smaller section, with a specific task.
Egerter opened the file on December of 1960. She worked for the CI/SIG section.
She explained what initiated the 201 Oswald file opening - a request from the State Department.
Post by Ben HolmesYou've run from that as far as you can... you are a gutless wonder
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?
Post by Ben Holmeswho
can't accept the fact that Egerter's testimony shows that CI/SIG was
concerned with investigating their own employees.
That's not what she said was the reason she opened the 201 file on Oswald.
Post by Ben HolmesYou've asserted otherwise - but as we'll soon see, you have ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to support this claim other than your own speculation.
Gee, I was just going to say that to you. You speculated there might be a CIA file somewhere showing Oswald was an employee, because you understand the 201 document does NOT mean that.
Post by Ben HolmesWhich contradict's Egerter's testimony.
What contradicts Egerter's testimony is your assertion that Egerter offered evidence establishing Oswald was an employee. She didn't. She explained, as I've explained to you, that the CIA 201 file she opened was due to the State Department's reqquest for information on Oswald and others, and she had no knowledge that allowed her to say Oswald or any of the others were employees or CIA assets.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesThe information is
different, yet corroborates the same thing.
It doesn’t corroborate Oswald was an employee or asset.
Yes... *BOTH* witnesses do precisely this. You're desperately running
and lying... but the fact remains that I've supported my assertion
with evidence,
You've supported your assertion with hearsay (not evidence) and an inference that anything Egerter did in regards to Oswald meant he was an employee.
Hearsay and infererence is not evidence.
Post by Ben Holmesand you've been proven a liar.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?
Post by Ben HolmesRumors don’t corroborate anything
You're lying again, Huckster. Cite for your claim that the case
officer withdrawing money was a mere rumor...
Straw man argument. What is a rumor is Wilcott's inference that the case officer withdrawing money meant Oswald was an employee. It doesn't.
Post by Ben Holmesand a 201 file opened after an individual defected doesn’t indicate
the individual had any relationship with the agency.
A false 201 file opened after an individual "defected" would be the
natural thing to do with a false defector who was an agent.
You need to show Oswald was a fake defector and you need to show it was a fake 201 file and you need to show that's a natural thing to do in agency files that only agency employees would see. You don't get to just speculate these things into existence.
Post by Ben HolmesWatch folks, as Huckster cannot refute that fact.
I don't need to refute "facts" you make up on the fly.
Post by Ben HolmesYou’ve got nothing.
What I have is proof that, as usual, you've been proven a liar.
And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?
Instead of offering evidence, you go straight to the name-calling.
Post by Ben HolmesI cited what you claimed I couldn't provide, and I responded to EVERY
SINGLE ASSERTION YOU MADE without deleting anything.
You cited absolutely no evidence, as hearsay, speculation, and inferences are not evidence. And what I claimed you wouldn't do was: "You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it."
Post by Ben HolmesYou've now been proven a liar - because I'm quite sure you aren't
honest enough to now retract that lie.
And that's ad hominem and begging the question. You've speculated, you've drawn inferences, and you've cited hearsay, and c onclusions about hearsay.
Post by Ben HolmesPost by Ben HolmesWatch folks, as Huckster whines, stammers, and posts logical fallacy
after logical fallacy - yet never admitting that I've cited the
evidence that supports what I stated.
Begged questions, ad hominem and falsehoods. You've cited no evidence.
Post by Ben HolmesYou cited no evidence that supported what you stated.
Sorry stupid, you aren't the judge.
And there's more name-calling instead of rebuttal. What *evidence* did you cite? I'm not asking for the hearsay, or the conclusions about the hearsay, or the inferences made about what the testimony implied, I'm just asking for your *evidence*. Got any?
Post by Ben HolmesRumors don’t corroborate anything, and a 201 file opened after an
individual defected doesn’t indicate the individual had any
relationship with the agency.
Already answered.
Yes, I did answer this numerous times. You said you would refute my claims with evidence, but what you've posted doesn't qualify as evidence.