The Post That Forced Huckster Sienzant To Run Away...

[Ben Holmes]

Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset

Three years before the Kennedy assassination, Lee 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. This 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.

The kicker is that the CI/SIG division is only tasked with
investigating current CIA agents who are potential security risks.
Egerter 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, making him easy to burn, for example,
as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.

Interviewer: "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."

Interviewer: "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."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk

[Hank Sienzant]

Another fringe reset - where you bring up stuff that has been addressed before and pretend none of what transpired in the past ever occurred:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/_v8xAJ6TqGA/m/6ydMJHb2BAAJ

As I pointed out in the link above: “I don’t know there’s any evidence Oswald was CIA connected and what you’ve cited thus far is rumors from Wilcott and your interpretation of what Ann Egerter meant. That isn’t evidence. No evidence of Oswald’s CIA connections has been presented by you.”

I addressed your Egerter claims in detail and pointed out all Wilcott testified to was hearsay and scuttlebutt within his department, as I pointed out here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/cBYCEai-j6Y/m/QlUG1m7-BAAJ

Bud examined the supposed evidence you argue for here and pointed out exactly how it was wanting:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fDRVKD8ctZ8/m/DZGKbCoYAgAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:35:41 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Amusingly, you cited a post that wasn't a response to THIS POST!!!

Posted right here, or in the past...


>I addressed your Egerter claims...


Can you name this logical fallacy?

When logical fallacies are all you have to post, you've lost.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 11:35:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> As I pointed out in the link above: “I don’t know there’s any evidence Oswald was CIA connected and what you’ve cited thus far is rumors from Wilcott and your interpretation of what Ann Egerter meant. That isn’t evidence. No evidence of Oswald’s CIA connections has been presented by you.”

Oh wait, the U-2 was a secret program run by the CIA.
Oh wait, Atsugi, Japan was a U-2 base.
Oh wait, Oswald was at Atsugi.

No, no connection there. They just let any Marine walk around the base.
Especially one whose co-Marines called him, "Comrade Oswaldovich".
Yeah, nothing there.

[Hank Sienzant]

So every Marine at Atsugi was CIA? That’s exactly what your post implies. Do you understand the problem with this kind of “logic”?

[Hank Sienzant]

It addressed the same nonsense you brought up above. And exposed it as nonsense.

>
> Posted right here, or in the past...
>
>
> >I addressed your Egerter claims...
>
>
> Can you name this logical fallacy?

No, because there isn’t one. Except shifting the burden of proof and begging the question, both by you, by asking me to name the logical fallacy you haven’t established I committed.

>
> When logical fallacies are all you have to post, you've lost.

Then you’ve lost. Thanks for that admission.

You committed the logical fallacies of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof above, which, by your own admission, means you lost.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:24:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>So every Marine at Atsugi was CIA? That’s exactly what your post implies. Do you understand the problem with this kind of “logic”?

So your mother doesn't mind you molesting kids? That's exactly what

your post implies. Do you understand the problem with this kind of

"logic?"

Nah... you don't. But then again, you're a coward:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:28:53 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Chickenshit would label it a lie.

>> Posted right here, or in the past...

Indeed, Huckster **STILL** refuses to respond to this post.

He knows CIA procedures and processes better than a longtime employee
of the CIA.

ROTFLMAO!!!

>>>I addressed your Egerter claims...
>>
>> Can you name this logical fallacy?
>

>No...


Figures. You never seem to recognize logical fallacies spouted by you
or other believers.

That fact tells the tale.


But the truth is, you'll **NEVER** quote Egerter, then cite ANY
EVIDENCE AT ALL that she was incorrect in her testimony.

You can't.

You're simply lying.

>> When logical fallacies are all you have to post, you've lost.
>

>Then I've lost. Thanks for pointing it out.

And you're a coward. As shown here:

[BT George]

If he went away he was simply bored.

[Hank Sienzant]

Amusingly you deleted my point that it covered the same ground, so your complaint is meaningless.

> >
> >It addressed the same nonsense you brought up above. And exposed it as nonsense.
> Can you name this logical fallacy?

Shifting the burden of proof. You allege it, you need to establish it.

> Chickenshit would label it a lie.

Thus far you have alleged it is a logical fallacy, without even naming the fallacy, and then invoking the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof by asking me to name it. I was unaware you speak for anyone else.

> >> Posted right here, or in the past...
> Indeed, Huckster **STILL** refuses to respond to this post.

I responded above, with the link to the prior discussion on this.

>
> He knows CIA procedures and processes better than a longtime employee
> of the CIA.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!

I quoted what Egerter said.

> >>>I addressed your Egerter claims...
> >>
> >> Can you name this logical fallacy?

Still shifting the burden, Ben.


> >
> >No...

Still quoting out of context. Still deleting my points.

>
>
> Figures. You never seem to recognize logical fallacies spouted by you
> or other believers.

What I actually said, and you ran from, was “ No, because there isn’t one. Except shifting the burden of proof and begging the question, both by you, by asking me to name the logical fallacy you haven’t established I committed.”

>
> That fact tells the tale.

The fact is you don’t want to talk about Egerter, because 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
— quote —
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.
— unquote —

>
>
> But the truth is, you'll **NEVER** quote Egerter, then cite ANY
> EVIDENCE AT ALL that she was incorrect in her testimony.
>
> You can't.

She said she had no knowledge Oswald was connected to the CIA. See above quote. Run, delete, call me names, repeat.


>
> You're simply lying.

Quoting her testimony is not lying, Ben.

> >> When logical fallacies are all you have to post, you've lost.
> >
> >Then I've lost. Thanks for pointing it out.

Changing what I wrote is a further admission you are running. What I actually wrote was:
“Then you’ve lost. Thanks for that admission. You committed the logical fallacies of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof above, which, by your own admission, means you lost.”

And you follow that up with more ad hominem and a change of subject. Run, Ben, run. See Ben run:

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> The fact is you don’t want to talk about Egerter, because 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
> — quote —
> 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.
> — unquote —

> She said she had no knowledge Oswald was connected to the CIA. See above quote. Run, delete, call me names, repeat.

I hate to burst your bubble, Hank, but just because someone denies knowledge of something is not proof that it wasn't true.
It just means that she didn't have any knowledge of it.
And that's if she was telling the truth.

But there's evidence that she wasn't, as this memo from John McCone to James Rowley, dated March 3, 1964, shows:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mccone-to-rowley-3.3.64.jpg

But being the "more knowledgeable" one, you knew about this memo already, right ?

[recip...@gmail.com]

I'm shure he does. And that the McCone Rowley memo has long been known to be a forgery. As Tony Marsh (one of the people who exposed the forgery) would say, "please try to keep up"

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 1:31:10 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm shure he does. And that the McCone Rowley memo has long been known to be a forgery.

Really ?
Name the document expert who examined the document and concluded that it was a forgery.

[Hank Sienzant]

1. Why? You’ll just reject any opinion if it conflicts with your faith in a conspiracy you can’t quite seem to pinpoint.
2. That’s a shifting of the burden of proof. You need to establish the document *you cited* is legitimate, we don’t need to disprove your citation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:27:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Run coward... RUN!!!

>>>It addressed the same nonsense you brought up above. And exposed it as nonsense.
>> Can you name this logical fallacy?

Huckster couldn't. It's known as begging the question.

>> Chickenshit would label it a lie.
>

>Thus far...


You've been unable to answer my questions.

That's okay... everyone already knows you're a coward.

>>>> Posted right here, or in the past...
>> Indeed, Huckster **STILL** refuses to respond to this post.
>
>I responded above, with the link to the prior discussion on this.

You're lying again... I just got through pointing out that you're
cited post DIDN'T EVEN RESPOND TO THE POST BEING DISCUSSED!

You're simply lying again.

Rather blatantly....

>> He knows CIA procedures and processes better than a longtime employee
>> of the CIA.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>I quoted what Egerter said.

You don't BELIEVE what Egerter said.

You hold yourself to be a higher authority on the CIA than a long-time
employee.

You simply don't believe the evidence.

>>>>>I addressed your Egerter claims...
>>>>
>>>> Can you name this logical fallacy?
>
>Still shifting the burden, Ben.

You're still begging the question... and too much a coward to admit
it.


>>>No...

>>
>> Figures. You never seem to recognize logical fallacies spouted by you
>> or other believers.
>

>What I actually said...


Was a logical falllacy. You never seem to recognize logical
fallacies spouted by you.

>> That fact tells the tale.
>
>The fact is you don’t want to talk about Egerter

You're the coward, not I.

I'm posting it - you're denying it.

> because 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
>— quote —
>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.
>— unquote —

So what you have is a contradiction. This is *YOUR* problem to
explain. Critics have a perfectly acceptable and credible explanation
for this contradiction - you don't.


And rather than trying to explain this contradiction - you'll run.

As you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!


Of course, we know you're a coward:

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 1:31:10 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

And it is worse than that. Much worse, in fact.

Ben cited Egerter’s testimony as evidence that Oswald was CIA: “The kicker is that the CI/SIG division [where Egerter worked] is only tasked with investigating current CIA agents who are potential security risks.”

Gil says, no, Egerter said she didn’t know either way, apparently without even realizing he’s contradicting Ben supposed evidence of Oswald’s CIA connections. He’s agreeing with me that Egerter’s testimony doesn’t establish anything about Oswald’s intelligence connections.

He then extends the argument further, suggesting Egerter might be lying and can’t be trusted to tell the truth, again without realizing he’s undermining Ben’s claims in the initial post entirely. If Egerter can’t be trusted, and she didn’t know either way, then Ben’s argument crumbles, which is the point I’ve been making for years.

He then cites a document that’s supposedly legitimate, but doesn’t establish it is, and expects us to disprove its legitimacy, shifting the burden.

And of course, Gil also ignored the initial point I made to him directly:
** quote **

So every Marine at Atsugi was CIA? That’s exactly what your post implies. Do you understand the problem with this kind of “logic”?

** unquote **

I asked this after Gil posted this argument:
“Oh wait, the U-2 was a secret program run by the CIA. Oh wait, Atsugi, Japan was a U-2 base. Oh wait, Oswald was at Atsugi. No, no connection there.”

[Hank Sienzant]

I do: you look at the wrong things, and you look at the wrong things wrongly.

>
>
> And rather than trying to explain this contradiction - you'll run.
>
> As you do...
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!
>

Hilarious!

Ben deletes and runs from my arguments, merely repeats his own, then has the temerity to call me the coward.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:14:07 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> we don’t need to disprove your citation.

You do if you claim it's fake as your ally "recipient x" claimed.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:37:17 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> So every Marine at Atsugi was CIA? That’s exactly what your post implies. Do you understand the problem with this kind of “logic”?
> ** unquote **

Do you understand that the U-2 program was a CIA top secret program and anybody on that base had to have special clearance ?
Do you understand that the CIA ran operations under the cover of the military ?
Do you know that the alliance between the military and CIA was so close that the military purchased weapons and ammunition for the CIA's "black operations" ?

Do you know that, according to Warren Commission counsel Bert Griffin, the CIA lied to the Commission ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bert-Griffin_-CIA-lied-to-us.mp4

Did you know that according to Richard Sprague, Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, CIA Chief Richard Helms lied to the Committee ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/helms-lied-to-HSCA.mp4

Now tell us again why we should believe CIA employee Ann Egerter.

[recip...@gmail.com]

The aforementioned Tony Marsh, for starters. Jefferson Morley, to name another. And Gary Buell.


Here is some discussion of it at the EF:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2536-the-mccone-memo/#comment-15448

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us who has authenticated it as authentic.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> The aforementioned Tony Marsh, for starters. Jefferson Morley, to name another. And Gary Buell.

Are they document experts ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:14:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 2:37:17?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 1:31:10?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I'm shure he does. And that the McCone Rowley memo has long been known to be a forgery.
>> Really ?
>> Name the document expert who examined the document and concluded that it was a forgery.
>
>1. Why? You’ll just reject any opinion if it conflicts with your faith in a conspiracy you can’t quite seem to pinpoint.
>2. That’s a shifting of the burden of proof. You need to establish the document *you cited* is legitimate, we don’t need to disprove your citation.

Can you cite where **YOU** did what you're demanding others do?

Of course not.

And everyone knows you're a coward who refuses to support HIS OWN
WORDS:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:37:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 1:31:10?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 3:54:38?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 7:27:08?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>> The fact is you don’t want to talk about Egerter, because 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
>>>> — quote —
>>>> 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.
>>>> — unquote —
>>>> She said she had no knowledge Oswald was connected to the CIA. See above quote. Run, delete, call me names, repeat.
>>> I hate to burst your bubble, Hank, but just because someone denies knowledge of something is not proof that it wasn't true.
>>> It just means that she didn't have any knowledge of it.
>>> And that's if she was telling the truth.
>>>
>>> But there's evidence that she wasn't, as this memo from John McCone to James Rowley, dated March 3, 1964, shows:
>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mccone-to-rowley-3.3.64.jpg
>>>
>>> But being the "more knowledgeable" one, you knew about this memo already, right ?
>> I'm shure he does. And that the McCone Rowley memo has long been known to be a forgery. As Tony Marsh (one of the people who exposed the forgery) would say, "please try to keep up"
>
>And it is worse than that. Much worse, in fact.

Watch folks, as Huckster continues to lie...

> Ben cited Egerter’s testimony as evidence that Oswald was CIA: “The
> kicker is that the CI/SIG division [where Egerter worked] is only
> tasked with investigating current CIA agents who are potential
> security risks.”

Moron, aren't you? You pretend that you're quoting Egerter - but you
didn't.


>Gil says, no, Egerter said she didn’t know either way...


There you go again, molesting your own mother...

You'll **NEVER** quote Gil contradicting what I posted about Egerter's
testimony.


>He then extends the argument further...


You didn't quote him from the beginning. Start there.

Then prove what a coward you are here:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:47:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

And rather than trying to explain this contradiction - you'll run.

As you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[recip...@gmail.com]

They all spent years, if not decades, poring through immense piles of FBI/CIA/SS/DoD/WC/HSCA documents. They know what such an item would look like.

So, what "document expert" authenticated the "McCone-Rowley Memo" in the first place? After all, you introduced it as an actual memo, so it's up to you to demonstrate its veracity.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ask Ben - it’s his argument that we should.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 6:18:40 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The aforementioned Tony Marsh, for starters. Jefferson Morley, to name another. And Gary Buell.
> > Are they document experts ?
> They all spent years, if not decades, poring through immense piles of FBI/CIA/SS/DoD/WC/HSCA documents. They know what such an item would look like.

Uh Huh. You mean when Tony Marsh said that McCone would not use Hoover's name but instead would have used his CIA CRYPTO name ?
Did Marsh say what that crypto name was ?
Or how the head of the Secret Service would be privy to CIA crypto names ?

That's one of the excuses he used for determning it was fake.

You're the one who said the document was fake. Prove it.

You still haven't named the document expert who examined the document and concluded it was a fake.
You name researchers who are not experts in forged documents as your "experts".
Theirs is only an opinion.
You say it's fake. I'll believe you as soon as you tell me who the expert is who concluded that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:41:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 11:40:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There you go again, molesting your own mother.

You've been COMPLETELY unable to quote Gil contradicting anything I
posted on Egerter's testimony.

Quite the pervert, aren't you?

Coward, too...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0AImUcgnD3E/m/xV6auX-aAQAJ

[Hank Sienzant]

Somebody posing as you disavowed the authenticity of this memo 14 years ago on this board:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/04mX77mGFk0/m/PFRzvSBMz0MJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/04mX77mGFk0/m/oWJSLKIp1p0J

The National Archives couldn’t find the memo:
http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com/2006/12/poster-at-alt.html

It first surfaced in a tabloid:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/gnJy8ep3LCw/m/VN1stQM4xSgJ

If you have an earlier source, please provide it.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 7:05:05 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> Somebody posing as you disavowed the authenticity of this memo 14 years ago on this board:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/04mX77mGFk0/m/PFRzvSBMz0MJ
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/04mX77mGFk0/m/oWJSLKIp1p0J

Never disavowed the authenticity. I have doubts even today.
But there are ways to find out if the document is legitimate.
That can only be done by a document expert examining the original document.
Not by some researcher looking at an electronic copy and giving an opinion.

> The National Archives couldn’t find the memo:
> http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com/2006/12/poster-at-alt.html

I'm sure the CIA turns all of its documents over to the National Archives.
If the Archives doesn't have it, then it has to be a fake.

> It first surfaced in a tabloid:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/gnJy8ep3LCw/m/VN1stQM4xSgJ

What's the publication that it appeared in have to do with the authenticity of the document ?
What if it appeared in the New York Times or the Washington Post ? Would it be more believable ?
ROFLMAO.

Declaring it fake because somebody said so isn't enough.
It's already been explained how the document could be tested for authenticity.
Until that is done, we really don't know for sure if it's real or fake.

Regardless, the evidence indicates that Oswald was connected to the FBI and trying to infiltrate the DRE in New Orleans.

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 6:18:40 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The aforementioned Tony Marsh, for starters. Jefferson Morley, to name another. And Gary Buell.
> > > Are they document experts ?
> > They all spent years, if not decades, poring through immense piles of FBI/CIA/SS/DoD/WC/HSCA documents. They know what such an item would look like.
> Uh Huh. You mean when Tony Marsh said that McCone would not use Hoover's name but instead would have used his CIA CRYPTO name ?
> Did Marsh say what that crypto name was ?
> Or how the head of the Secret Service would be privy to CIA crypto names ?
>
> That's one of the excuses he used for determning it was fake.

He also went to the archives and found that the document unique ID on the
alleged document, "C0-2-34,030", was attached to another SS document.
He (among others) pointed out that the NARA RIF # given for the alleged
document also turns out to belong to another document. IIRC, he was also
one of the researchers who noted that the alleged document was classified
"confidential." "Confidential" is the very lowest level of classification the US
Government assigns, and Tony (among others) noted that this is extremely
incongruous with the sensitivity of the alleged disclosures.

> You're the one who said the document was fake. Prove it.

Stop trying to shift the burden. You brought the subject up when you wrote this:

"But there's evidence that she wasn't, as this memo from John McCone to James
Rowley, dated March 3, 1964, shows:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mccone-to-rowley-3.3.64.jpg"

You've asserted that it is valid by calling it "evidence." The burden of proof then
falls upon you to authenticate it as genuine. Especially since you have subsequently
admitted that you "have doubts even today."

You also ignore Gary Buell and Jeff Morley. Buell and Morley aren't just some jerks
who walked in randomly off the street. They've been poring through government
records for years, if not decades, and know what the real thing looks like. For that
matter, I can't think of a single researcher experienced with the JFKA USG internal
documentation who still thinks that the MC-R document is actually genuine. Most
came down on the "fake" years ago. Those who don't absolutely think it's a forgery
are still highly skeptical of its authenticity. The community has spoken.

If you want to have a qualified QDX determine the veracity of the document, hire
some on your own dime and don't demand that others do it for you. Really, you're
just trying to move the goalposts along with shifting the burden.

> You still haven't named the document expert who examined the document and concluded it was a fake.

You still haven't brought up a single QDX who has argued for it's veracity. Again,
if you want to bring it up as "evidence," it's up to *you* to authenticate it in the first
place. *Especially* since you've admitted your own doubts about it.

> You name researchers who are not experts in forged documents as your "experts".

Who said that only an "expert in forged documents" is a reliable judge?

> Theirs is only an opinion.

The QDX's determination is also only their opinion. It's not an issue of whose
opinion it is, but the reasons why that opinion is held.

> You say it's fake. I'll believe you as soon as you tell me who the expert is who concluded that.

You wouldn't believe me no matter how many perfectly credentialed QDXs
I could quote on the subject.