Huckster - Proven Liar... Yet AGAIN!

[Ben Holmes]

>> First, 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.

And as long as he can refrain from logical fallacies, I can answer any
attempted rebuttal he cares to make.

I said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
there's evidence for others... for example:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=5

(Notice the reason given for refusal to testify... And like other
evidence for intimidation - this will be ignored by Huckster as well.)

For Wilcott, read his testimony here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=28

Egerter, I discuss below in a post that has been posted many times
before:


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


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. The information is
different, yet corroborates the same thing.

Watch 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.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> First, 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.

>
> And as long as he can refrain from logical fallacies, I can answer any
> attempted rebuttal he cares to make.
>
> I said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
> there's evidence for others... for example:
> 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. The very next word is something you didn’t do: Verify.

>
> (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. But there is no truth to that claim. However the son claimed to believe it, and gave that reason as his reason to not testify.

>
> For Wilcott, read his testimony here:
> https://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
“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.

Page 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.

And 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. There’s a word in English that describes this quite well. That word is RUMOR.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rumor

I thought you don’t deal in speculation. But here you are more than willing to pass along this speculative hearsay and pretend it’s evidence. It’s not.

And the page preceding your cited page puts into context what Wilcott is saying on page 28 that you cited: 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.

>
> Egerter, I discuss below in a post that has been posted many times
> before:
>
>
> 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.

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

> 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,

Gee, I wonder why the CIA might consider him a security risk? Maybe 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?

> making him easy to burn, for example,
> as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.

Or making him the real assassin of Kennedy after Kennedy went by his place of employment in an open convertible at a slow speed.

>
> 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."

“the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?”

At the time this file was opened, it was after Oswald had defected to Russia.

Maybe 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.

I 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.

I 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”. I 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. But they open this file when Oswald is already in Russia? That tells me they are worried about what secrets Oswald might know and tell. I do know all the Marine call signs Oswald had knowledge of were changed after his defection. That also tells me he wasn’t an employee or an asset at the he defected. If he was, there should be a file opened on him sometime before his defection.

>
> http://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 he 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.

Ann Egerter was interviewed almost two decades after she created the file and didn’t recall a lot about it.

Here’s the actual link, not the selected quotes you cited:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=5&search=Egerter

Note she explains the purpose of a 201 file here and the next page:
https://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.

> The information is
> different, yet corroborates the same thing.

It doesn’t corroborate Oswald was an employee or asset. Rumors don’t corroborate anything, and a 201 file opened after an individual defected doesn’t indicate the individual had any relationship with the agency.

You’ve got nothing.

>
> Watch 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.

You cited no evidence that supported what you stated.

Rumors don’t corroborate anything, and a 201 file opened after an individual defected doesn’t indicate the individual had any relationship with the agency.

[Hank Sienzant]

Addendum: Egerter is asked if Oswald’s name is on the list of defectors received from the State Department. She says yes. She is asked if any of those names on the list was an employee. She says she has no knowledge that any were. She is asked if any were an asset of the CIA. She again says not to her knowledge. She is asked if she opened 201 files on some or all of these individuals. She responds in the affirmative. The 201 file does not indicate CIA association, just an interest - in this case, because of an interest expressed by the State Department. So the claim that anything Egerter said indicates Oswald was an employee or asset is nonsense. She would on occasion do research on individuals requested by other Departments external to the CIA and create files on those individuals.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=31&search=Egerter

What we see here is what we always see: CTs taking stuff out of context and not sharing all of the evidence that enables the reader to make a truly informed decision. They share only what they want you to see to guide you to reaching a belief in a conspiracy. They are dishonest.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> First, 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.

>> And 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.

So Huckster simply lied when he labeled it a strawman...

>> I said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
>> there's evidence for others... for example:
>> 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.

Your claim that it "goes nowhere" is nonsensical - it doen't mean
anything.

> The 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.

Now Huckster - PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT YOU DIDN'T READ THIS CORRECTLY!
ADMIT THAT THE HSCA DID INDEED "VERIFY."

Or run like the coward you are...

>> (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.

> But there is no truth to that claim.

WHAT "CLAIM?" **YOU** ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO MADE A SPECULATIVE CLAIM!!

>However the son claimed to believe it,

BELIEVE ***WHAT***???


You'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 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...

You're a liar.

>> For Wilcott, read his testimony here:
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=28
>
>No, let’s start on page 7 here

Sorry moron, I already cited that.

The cite I'm giving now is not to his rambling explanation, BUT TO HIS
SWORN TESTIMONY.

Notice folks, that I've provided what Huckster said I'd never do, and
he's not *YET* offered a retraction of his lie.

(I offer that as a prediction - watch! Even though Huckster *KNOWS* I
PREDICTED THIS - he won't prove me wrong.)

> https://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.

It's still acceptable testimony.

And his assertions about the case officer - you've simply tucked your
head in the sand and refused to hear.

Watch folks, as Huckster CANNOT ADMIT that the case officer
information had no hint of "rumor" attached to it.

>Page 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.

Wilcott clearly differentiated people - some of whom he thought had
actual knowledge...

Such as the case officer who referred to Oswald in connection with
money being withdrawn.

Tell us Huckster - do you think you can convince people with lies?

Do 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?

>And 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.*

That's known as a lie of omission.

That makes you a proven liar.

>There’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

>I 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.

Hence your conflation of people who Wilcott thought were simply
speculating, and those who clearly weren't.

(And later on, with your conflation of how 201 files were used, and
the CI/SIG's use of 201 files.)

> But 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."

You're a liar.

>And the page preceding your cited page puts into context what
> Wilcott is saying on page 28 that you cited:
> 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.

If you had the power, Wilcott & Egerter's testimony would disappear.

But notice... I provided EXACTLY what you said I couldn't do.

And I've answered EVERY LOGICAL FALLACY AND LIE that you've posted
here.

It's time for **YOU** to admit you lied.

>> Egerter, I discuss below in a post that has been posted many times
>> before:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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...

Now, 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.

Let's compare it to Egerter's EXPLICIT testimony.

(I predict that Huckster has *NO* citations...)

>> 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,
>
> Gee, I wonder why the CIA might consider him a security risk?

"investigations of agency employees..."

Run coward... RUN!!!

> Maybe 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.

>> making him easy to burn, for example,
>> as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.
>
> Or 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.

>> 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."

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.

Because it proves him a liar.


But, 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.

>> 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."
>
>“the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?”

The *EMPLOYEE* presenting a counterintelligence risk...

You can lie, coward... but I'm just going to shove it down your
throat.

> At the time this file was opened, it was after Oswald had defected
> to Russia.

Speculation on your part... begging the question.

> Maybe 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.

> I 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.

> I 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.

> I 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.

> But they open this file when Oswald is already in Russia?

One file shows that other files are impossible???

What a SILLY notion!

The CIA is a bit smarter than that...

> That tells me they are worried
> about what secrets Oswald might know and tell.

Your speculation isn't evidence.

> I 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.

If you can't, then you've proven your argument nonsense.

Get busy!

> That 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.

I don't even need to argue this... most intelligent people can
immediately figure it out on their own.

> If 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.

Or run away, as I expect you will.

>> http://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."

You've evaded that... time and time again.

> he 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?

> Ann 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.

What more is needed?

>Here’s the actual link, not the selected quotes you cited:
>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.

>Note she explains the purpose of a 201 file here and the next page:
>https://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.

You've run from that as far as you can... you are a gutless wonder who
can't accept the fact that Egerter's testimony shows that CI/SIG was
concerned with investigating their own employees.

You've asserted otherwise - but as we'll soon see, you have ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to support this claim other than your own speculation.

Which contradict's Egerter's testimony.

>> The 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, and you've been proven a liar.


> Rumors don’t corroborate anything


You're lying again, Huckster. Cite for your claim that the case
officer withdrawing money was a mere rumor...

> and 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.

Watch folks, as Huckster cannot refute that fact.


>You’ve got nothing.


What I have is proof that, as usual, you've been proven a liar. I
cited what you claimed I couldn't provide, and I responded to EVERY
SINGLE ASSERTION YOU MADE without deleting anything.

You've now been proven a liar - because I'm quite sure you aren't
honest enough to now retract that lie.

>> Watch 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.
>
>You cited no evidence that supported what you stated.

Sorry stupid, you aren't the judge.

> Rumors 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.

[Ben Holmes]

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Now Hank's butt is just the way he likes it, red and sore!

[Hank Sienzant]

Asked and answered at the cited link:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=31&search=Egerter
See also the next page.

She opened 201 files on numerous people that she had no knowledge were employees or assets of the CIA.
The State Department requested info, in the process of providing that info, she opened the 201 file on Oswald (and others).

That doesn't establish or imply a relationship between the individuals on the State Department list and the CIA.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:35:19 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>Asked and answered...

Nope.

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben proved Hank right, he can`t discuss the evidence, he can only run from it.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

<Logical fallacies deleted>

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:39:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

LFD.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:09:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> First, 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.

> >> And 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.

>
> So 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.

> >> I said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
> >> there's evidence for others... for example:
> >> 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.

>
> Your 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.

> > The 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.

>
> Now 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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9SMUzj-_4Q

>
> Or 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.

> >> (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

> > But 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?

> >However 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!

>
>
> You'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.

> > and 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".


>
> You're a liar.

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.

> >> For Wilcott, read his testimony here:
> >> https://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.

>
> The 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.

>
> Notice 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.

>
> (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.

> > https://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.

>
> It'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.

>
> And 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.

>
> Watch 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.

> >Page 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.

>
> Wilcott 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.

>
> Such 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?

>
> Tell 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.

>
> Do 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.

> >And 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.

>
> That's known as a lie of omission.

That's know as mischaracterizing what I saw. A straw man argument.

>
> That makes you a proven liar.

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.

> >There’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.

> >I 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.

>
> Hence 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.

>
> (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.

> > But 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.


>
> You're a liar.

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims with evidence. When do you intend to start?

> >And the page preceding your cited page puts into context what
> > Wilcott is saying on page 28 that you cited:
> > 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.

>
> If 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.

>
> But 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.

>
> And 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.

> >> Egerter, I discuss below in a post that has been posted many times
> >> before:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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."

> >> 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.

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

> >> 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.
> >>

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

> >> The 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?

>
> Now, 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.

>
> Let's compare it to Egerter's EXPLICIT testimony.
>
> (I predict that Huckster has *NO* citations...)

You'd be wrong. Again.

> >> 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,
> >
> > 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.


>
> Run coward... RUN!!!

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?

> > Maybe 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.

> >> making him easy to burn, for example,
> >> as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.

Calls for speculation. Move to strike.

> >
> > Or 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.

> >> 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."
> 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.

> Because 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?

>
>
> But, 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.

> >> 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."
> >
> >“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.

>
> You 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?

> > At 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.

> > Maybe 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?

> > I 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.

> > I 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.

> > I 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.

> > But 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.

==

>
> The CIA is a bit smarter than that...

Show us the evidence. Don't speculate about the evidence.

> > That 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.

> > I 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.

>
> If 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.

> > That 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?

> I 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.

> > If 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.

> Or 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.

> >> http://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.

>
> You'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.

> > he 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.

> > Ann 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.

>
> What more is needed?
> >Here’s the actual link, not the selected quotes you cited:
> >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.

> >Note she explains the purpose of a 201 file here and the next page:
> >https://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.

>
> You'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?

> who
> 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.

>
> You'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.

>
> Which 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.

> >> The 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.

> and 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?

>
>
> > Rumors 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.

> > and 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.

>
> Watch folks, as Huckster cannot refute that fact.

I don't need to refute "facts" you make up on the fly.

>
>
> >You’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.

> I 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."

>
> You'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.

> >> Watch 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.

> >
> >You 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?

> > Rumors 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.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:46:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:09:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> First, 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.

>Leaving off everything from the "and" makes it a straw man argument.

I QUOTED YOUR EXACT WORDS... IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR THIS TO BE A
STRAWMAN!

>>>> And 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.

And it was here where the second half - that I'd be willing to discuss
it... and you RAN AWAY from this the first time... *NOW* that I
pointed it out, YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING ABOUT WHAT I JUST SAID.

I addressed both parts of your quoted statement.

You lied...


I ADDRESSED BOTH PARTS OF YOUR QUOTED STATEMENT!!!


You're again, a proven liar.

>> So 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.

What did I make up?

Quote it.

>>>> I said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
>>>> there's evidence for others... for example:
>>>> 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.

Not only that, but I responded to every single point you made,
statement by statement, regardless of whether or not it was
relevant...

And you haven't retracted your lie.

I knew that this would happened... you're simply too dishonest...

> 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.

You're lying again, Huckster. You simply will not, and CAN NOT, cite
for your claim that Wilcott's testimony isn't admissible.

It was not entirely hearsay, despite your claim.

It *IS* evidence, it *IS* admissible.

>> Your claim that it "goes nowhere" is nonsensical - it doen't mean
>> anything.
>
>It still goes nowhere.

Meaningless statement.

>>> The 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.

THE SON WAS NOT DEAD, MORON!!! The fact that the HSCA questioned him
is proof of this.

You didn't read very carefully.

>> Now Huckster - PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT YOU DIDN'T READ THIS CORRECTLY!
>> ADMIT THAT THE HSCA DID INDEED "VERIFY."
>
>How could they verify it?

Did they question the son?

You can answer "yes" or "no."

"Yes" means that they verified what Wilcott told them... "No" means
your lying again...

>> Or run like the coward you are...
>>

>>>> (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.

LFD.

>>> But 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.

No stupid, that's not the claim you made. Want to try again?

>>>However the son claimed to believe it,
>>
>> BELIEVE ***WHAT***???
>

>Gosh, you get awfully forgetful ...


I haven't forgotten your claim... and you STILL haven't cited for it.

>> You'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.

Notice folks, that Huckster *STILL* can't cite. The only reason he
cannot cite is because HE MADE IT UP..

So labeling you a liar is not ad hominem, it's merely the only
possible explanation.

>>> and 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..

Yes, liar, it does.

It's the differerence between the truth, and a lie on your part.


>> You're a liar.

>>
>>>> For Wilcott, read his testimony here:
>>>> https://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.
>>

>> The cite I'm giving now is not to his rambling explanation, BUT TO HIS
>> SWORN TESTIMONY.
>>

>> Notice folks, that I've provided what Huckster said I'd never do, and
>> he's not *YET* offered a retraction of his lie.
>>

>> (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.

It's your burden.

**YOU** made the claim.

>>> https://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.
>>

>> It's still acceptable testimony.
>>

>> And 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.

Then you know that this was not hearsay. You know it *WOULD* be
admissible in court... you know that you're a liar.

>> Watch 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.

What Wilcott heard the case officer state is not "hearsay."

>>>Page 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.
>>

>> Wilcott clearly differentiated people - some of whom he thought had
>> actual knowledge...
>>

>> Such as the case officer who referred to Oswald in connection with
>> money being withdrawn.
>>

>> Tell us Huckster - do you think you can convince people with lies?
>>

>> Do 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?
>>

>>>And 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.*
>>

>> That's known as a lie of omission.
>>

>> That makes you a proven liar.
>>

>>>There’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

>>>I 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.
>>

>> Hence your conflation of people who Wilcott thought were simply
>> speculating, and those who clearly weren't.
>
>"Clearly weren't"?

Such as the case officer.

> Explain how you determined that.

Explain how you determined that it was hearsay.

>> (And later on, with your conflation of how 201 files were used, and
>> the CI/SIG's use of 201 files.)
>>

>>> But 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

So, minus the word "speculative"... you acknowledge that what I said
was correct.

That makes you a liar, doesn't it?


>> You're a liar.
>>

>>>And the page preceding your cited page puts into context what
>>> Wilcott is saying on page 28 that you cited:
>>> 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.
>>

>> If you had the power, Wilcott & Egerter's testimony would disappear.
>>

>> But notice... I provided EXACTLY what you said I couldn't do.
>>

>> And I've answered EVERY LOGICAL FALLACY AND LIE that you've posted
>> here.
>>
>> It's time for **YOU** to admit you lied.
>>

>>>> Egerter, I discuss below in a post that has been posted many times
>>>> before:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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...
>>

>> Now, 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

So you can't cite for your claim.

Good of you to admit it.

>> Let's compare it to Egerter's EXPLICIT testimony.
>>
>> (I predict that Huckster has *NO* citations...)
>
>You'd be wrong. Again.

And yet, you've not cited... Looks like I'm right... yet again.

>>>> 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,
>>>
>>> Gee, I wonder why the CIA might consider him a security risk?
>>
>> "investigations of agency employees..."
>>

>> Run coward... RUN!!!

>>
>>> Maybe 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...


Yes.

>>>> making him easy to burn, for example,
>>>> as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.
>>>

>>> Or 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.
>>

>>>> 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."
>>
>> 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.
>>

>> Because it proves him a liar.
>>

>> But, 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.
>>

>>>> 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."
>>>
>>>“the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?”
>> The *EMPLOYEE* presenting a counterintelligence risk...
>>

>> You can lie, coward... but I'm just going to shove it down your
>> throat.
>>

>>> At the time this file was opened, it was after Oswald had defected
>>> to Russia.
>>
>> Speculation on your part... begging the question.
>
>No

Yes.

>>> Maybe 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.
>>

>>> I 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.

>>> I 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.
>>

>>> I 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.
>>

>>> But they open this file when Oswald is already in Russia?
>> One file shows that other files are impossible???
>>
>> What a SILLY notion!
>>

>> The CIA is a bit smarter than that...
>>

>>> That tells me they are worried
>>> about what secrets Oswald might know and tell.
>> Your speculation isn't evidence.
>>

>>> I 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...


Of course you cannot. It destroys your argument.

>> If you can't, then you've proven your argument nonsense.
>>
>> Get busy!

And, of course, you've proven my point.

>>> That 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.
>>

>> I don't even need to argue this... most intelligent people can
>> immediately figure it out on their own.
>>

>>> If 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.
>>

>> Or run away, as I expect you will.

And did...

>>>> http://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."
>>

>> You've evaded that... time and time again.
>>

>>> he 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...


Yes, I did. You simply ran from it.

>>> Ann 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.
>>

>> What more is needed?
>>>Here’s the actual link, not the selected quotes you cited:
>>>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.
>>

>>>Note she explains the purpose of a 201 file here and the next page:
>>>https://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.
>>

>> You've run from that as far as you can... you are a gutless wonder

>> who can't accept the fact that Egerter's testimony shows that CI/SIG was
>> concerned with investigating their own employees.
>>

>> You've asserted otherwise - but as we'll soon see, you have ABSOLUTELY
>> NOTHING to support this claim other than your own speculation.
>>

>> Which contradict's Egerter's testimony.
>>

>>>> The 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, and you've been proven a liar.

>>
>>
>>> Rumors don’t corroborate anything
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Huckster. Cite for your claim that the case
>> officer withdrawing money was a mere rumor...
>>

>>> and 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

Nope. I merely need to assert that there's evidence supporting this.

Nothing else need be done.

>> Watch folks, as Huckster cannot refute that fact.
>>

>>>You’ve got nothing.
>>
>>
>> What I have is proof that, as usual, you've been proven a liar.

>> I cited what you claimed I couldn't provide, and I responded to EVERY
>> SINGLE ASSERTION YOU MADE without deleting anything.
>>

>> You've now been proven a liar - because I'm quite sure you aren't
>> honest enough to now retract that lie.
>>

>>>> Watch 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.
>>>

>>>You cited no evidence that supported what you stated.
>> Sorry stupid, you aren't the judge.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:46:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:09:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> First, 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. Just posting it was not the concept Hank expressed. Posting and discussing was, so you just posting something did not satisfy, or even address his prediction.

> >Leaving off everything from the "and" makes it a straw man argument.
> I QUOTED YOUR EXACT WORDS... IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR THIS TO BE A
> STRAWMAN!

You didn`t address the concept he expressed. You posted something and then lied, and claimed showed his prediction to be false. You can only prove his prediction to be false by addressing the entire concept he expressed.

You are just dishonest.

> >>>> And 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.
> And it was here where the second half - that I'd be willing to discuss
> it... and you RAN AWAY from this the first time... *NOW* that I
> pointed it out, YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING ABOUT WHAT I JUST SAID.
>
> I addressed both parts of your quoted statement.

You are lying, you`ve engaged in no honest discussion on the issue. Hank was proven correct by your performance.

> You lied...
>
>
> I ADDRESSED BOTH PARTS OF YOUR QUOTED STATEMENT!!!

You proven Hank correct, that you couldn`t discuss the issue. You talk over the points made, you remove the points made, you remove cites to the evidence, ect. This is not discussion of the issue, you act like some immature man-child.

> You're again, a proven liar.
> >> So 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.
> What did I make up?
>
> Quote it.
> >>>> I said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
> >>>> there's evidence for others... for example:
> >>>> 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.
> Not only that, but I responded to every single point you made,
> statement by statement, regardless of whether or not it was
> relevant...

You are simply lying. In this response by you you removed the point he made and the link to the evidence he gave...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/cBYCEai-j6Y/m/qq5aih4sAAAJ

> And you haven't retracted your lie.

The only liar here is you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 16:43:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:46:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:09:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >>>>>> First, 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.

Lie again, and claim that Huckster didn't say this:

*******************************************************

"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.

[Bud]

I know what he said and I know what he meant. You aren`t man enough to touch either.

Do you think you are discussing this issue with him? Have to ever had a discussion on an issue with anyone in this forum? You argue like a child, you play crooked games trying to score meaningless points, you isolate information and demand all attention be put only where you say it can be placed, but have an actual discussion? Never happen.

You argue just like Mark Lane taught you, dishonestly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:36:57 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Chickenshit can't possibly admit that EVERY SINGLE POINT Huckster made
in his first post was responded to in detail.

Chickenshit is clearly a liar... He doesn't mind other believers
lying, he just get's upset when I point it out.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:20:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I know what he said ...

Notice folks, that Chickenshit refuses to support his lie.

He can't.

[Hank Sienzant]

Change of subject. We're not discussing what I said. We're discussing what you said about what I said. I claimed your summary was a straw man argument, and it is.

Because, as I properly pointed out previously, you left out the second half of my compound sentence.

This is what you wrote: "...this is the post he claims I'd never post."

I claimed you wouldn't post the evidence AND be willing to discuss it.

You quoted it, but summarized it incorrectly. (You'll take the first three words of the preceding sentence out of context, and claim 'we're done here' or some such, no doubt).

I explained it this way the first time:

"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."

You deleted most of that.

And you haven't been willing to discuss it. You've deleted the bulk of my points, shown no evidence that establishes your interpretations/arguments are correct and refused to discuss the evidence whatsoever.

Instead, you want to argue about whether leaving half of my compound sentence out when summarizing my point qualifies as a straw man argument.

It does.

It also qualifies as changing the subject. You're still not doing exactly what I said you would not do:

"You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it."

And you're not. Talking about whether something is a straw man argument is not citing evidence and discussing it.
Talking about what you quoted instead of how you falsely summarized my point is not citing evidence and discussing it.
Calling people liars and cowards is not citing evidence and discussing it.
Deleting my points with an "LFD" or no indication at all is not citing evidence and discussing it.

This is you refusing to cite evidence and discuss it.

Exactly as I stated.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:22:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Calling yourself a liar now, aren't you Huckster!

I deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben couldn’t refute this, so he deleted it, and calls me a liar.

Change of subject. We're not discussing what I said. We're discussing what you said about what I said. I claimed your summary was a straw man argument, and it is.

Because, as I properly pointed out previously, you left out the second half of my compound sentence.

This is what you wrote: "...this is the post he claims I'd never post."

I claimed you wouldn't post the evidence AND be willing to discuss it.

You quoted it, but summarized it incorrectly. (You'll take the first three words of the preceding sentence out of context, and claim 'we're done here' or some such, no doubt).

I explained it this way the first time:

"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."

You deleted most of that.

And you haven't been willing to discuss it. You've deleted the bulk of my points, shown no evidence that establishes your interpretations/arguments are correct and refused to discuss the evidence whatsoever.

Instead, you want to argue about whether leaving half of my compound sentence out when summarizing my point qualifies as a straw man argument.

It does.

It also qualifies as changing the subject. You're still not doing exactly what I said you would not do:

"You'll never cite the evidence and be willing to discuss it."

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:08:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Eristic argumentation. Ben seeks to argue for the sake of arguing, and never for the sake of clarity. More tar babies to fight. More knots to untangle. More endless argumentative detours to address that go no where. Everyone is a liar, everyone is a coward.

Ho hum.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben STILL NOT discussing the evidence.

And he hates that I predicted he would avoid doing that, and keep pointing it out, as in here:

Ben couldn’t refute this, so he deleted it, and calls me a liar.

Change of subject. We're not discussing what I said. We're discussing what you said about what I said. I claimed your summary was a straw man argument, and it is.

Because, as I properly pointed out previously, you left out the second half of my compound sentence.

This is what you wrote: "...this is the post he claims I'd never post."

I claimed you wouldn't post the evidence AND be willing to discuss it.

You quoted it, but summarized it incorrectly. (You'll take the first three words of the preceding sentence out of context, and claim 'we're done here' or some such, no doubt).

I explained it this way the first time:

"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."

You deleted most of that.

And you haven't been willing to discuss it. You've deleted the bulk of my points, shown no evidence that establishes your interpretations/arguments are correct and refused to discuss the evidence whatsoever.

Instead, you want to argue about whether leaving half of my compound sentence out when summarizing my point qualifies as a straw man argument.

It does.

It also qualifies as changing the subject. You're still not doing exactly what I said you would not do:

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hank the Pig complains that Ben deletes "the bulk" of his points! Try throwing Bigfoot at Ben! Or Elvis! Or perhaps if you read him some poetry.

[Ben Holmes]

>Eristiic...

Chuckles does it again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:10:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Changing the topic won't work, Huckster.

You know by now that this is merely a logical fallacy that I'll delete
and not even bother to read...

[Hank Sienzant]

Here’s the topic YOU raised:
“First, Oswald certainly was connected with the CIA.”

I pointed out you wouldn’t cite the evidence and discuss the evidence.

You have not. You’d rather discuss (as we see here) whether you committed the logical fallacy of a straw man argument. You did, when you left off the last half of my compound sentence.

>
> You 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.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hank gets spanked again, and he loves it!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 09:12:48 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:24:04 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:10:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:40:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:08:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote: aa

No need to put your spin on it - everyone can read the thread.

[Hank Sienzant]

Yep, and the preceding one you spun this off of, where I pointed out the evidence and you deleted it all.

> >> You 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 posting the evidence and discussing it. You’d rather discuss whether you committed a logical fallacy of a straw man argument when you summarized my point falsely b6 leaving off the second half of my compound sentence.

You did summarize it falsely.

[Hank Sienzant]

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:39:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>>>> You 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...

[Hank Sienzant]

What Ben posted is above.

What I posted and Ben avoided is below.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:09:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:35:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:52:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> First, 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.

> >> And 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.

>
> So 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.

> >> I said "several people" - Egerter is one, James Wilcott another. But
> >> there's evidence for others... for example:
> >> 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.


>

> Your 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.

> > The 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.


>

> Now 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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9SMUzj-_4Q


>

> Or 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.

> >> (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

> > But 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?

> >However 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!


>
>

> You'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.

> > and 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".


>

> You're a liar.

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.

> >> For Wilcott, read his testimony here:
> >> https://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.


>

> The 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.


>

> Notice 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.


>

> (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.

> > https://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.


>

> It'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.


>

> And 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.


>

> Watch 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.

> >Page 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.


>

> Wilcott 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.


>

> Such 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?


>

> Tell 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.


>

> Do 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.

> >And 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.


>

> That's known as a lie of omission.

That's know as mischaracterizing what I saw. A straw man argument.


>

> That makes you a proven liar.

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal.

> >There’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.

> >I 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.


>

> Hence 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.


>

> (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.

> > But 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.


>

> You're a liar.

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims with evidence. When do you intend to start?

> >And the page preceding your cited page puts into context what
> > Wilcott is saying on page 28 that you cited:
> > 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.


>

> If 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.


>

> But 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.


>

> And 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.

> >> Egerter, I discuss below in a post that has been posted many times
> >> before:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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."

> >> 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.

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

> >> 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.
> >>

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

> >> The 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?


>

> Now, 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.


>

> Let's compare it to Egerter's EXPLICIT testimony.
>
> (I predict that Huckster has *NO* citations...)

You'd be wrong. Again.

> >> 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,
> >
> > 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.


>
> Run coward... RUN!!!

And that's ad hominem, not a rebuttal. You said you'd rebut my claims. When do you intend to start?

> > Maybe 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.

> >> making him easy to burn, for example,
> >> as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.

Calls for speculation. Move to strike.


> >

> > Or 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.

> >> 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."

> 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.

> Because 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?


>
>

> But, 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.

> >> 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."
> >
> >“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.


>

> You 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?

> > At 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.

> > Maybe 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?

> > I 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.

> > I 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.

> > I 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.

> > But 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.

==

>
> The CIA is a bit smarter than that...

Show us the evidence. Don't speculate about the evidence.

> > That 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.

> > I 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.


>

> If 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.

> > That 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?

> I 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.

> > If 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.

> Or 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.

> >> http://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.


>

> You'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.

> > he 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.

> > Ann 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.



>
> What more is needed?

> >Here’s the actual link, not the selected quotes you cited:
> >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.

> >Note she explains the purpose of a 201 file here and the next page:
> >https://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.



>

> You'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?

> who
> 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.


>

> You'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.


>

> Which 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.

> >> The 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.

> and 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?



>
>

> > Rumors 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.

> > and 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.


>

> Watch folks, as Huckster cannot refute that fact.

I don't need to refute "facts" you make up on the fly.


>
>

> >You’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.

> I 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."

>
> You'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.

> >> Watch 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.


> >

> >You 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?

> > Rumors don’t corroborate anything, and a 201 file opened after an
> > individual defected doesn’t indicate the individual had any
> > relationship with the agency.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 09:03:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

When a post moves from just 93 lines to 1255 lines in response, you
can be sure it's a Gish Gallup.

So I deleted it all without bothering to read it...

Huckster will cry...

[Hank Sienzant]

No, just point out you abandoned your argument and didn’t even try to argue against the evidence I cited and the points I made. As you admit, you simply deleted it all.

Deleting the arguments made doesn’t establish the points made are false. Only evidence can do that, and you have none.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:23:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:29:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 09:03:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> When a post moves from just 93 lines to 1255 lines in response, you
>> can be sure it's a Gish Gallup.
>>
>> So I deleted it all without bothering to read it...
>>
>> Huckster will cry...
>

>No...

Yes.

The proof that 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?