Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lee Harvey Oswald Was A CIA Asset.
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 8, 2020, 10:56:19 AM4/8/20
to
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
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
Bud
Apr 8, 2020, 12:59:20 PM4/8/20
to
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
If being a CIA assert was a crime, does anyone think that this woman`s decades old uncorroborated information could convict him? Yet to a conspiracy advocate like Ben it has the strength to establish it as fact.
> 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."
You always have to assume conspiracy hobbyists are going to be dishonest and they rarely disappoint. You always have to check the primary documents, you can never take what they present at face value.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=13&tab=page
In context, it isn`t entirely clear that a 201 file were only be opened on CIA assets.
> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
Would have been more useful to link to Egerter`s HSCA deposition than a crackpot article.
Ben Holmes
Apr 8, 2020, 1:25:30 PM4/8/20
to
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
>
> If being a CIA assert was a crime
It's not. And trying to twist the facts into some sort of judicial
trial shows that you're TERRIFIED of the facts in this case.
> does anyone think that this woman`s decades old uncorroborated
> information could convict him?
So you''re stating that she was lying, and that the CI/SIG wasn't what
she stated it was? And that a jury trial would make such a finding?
Do you have a citation for that?
No.
And you never will - you're simply lying again...
> Yet to a conspiracy advocate like Ben it has the strength to establish it
> as fact.
This is, of course, merely one of many bits of evidence showing that
Oswald was an intelligence asset. This has been stated by those who
are far more knowledgeable on the facts, and are indeed true
"experts."
This denial by Chickenshit is simply an example of the Dunning-Kruger
effect.
>> 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.
>
> Interesting to see this conspiracy hobbyist rush to where he is so
> desperate to go on the strength of nothing.
Another empty claim from the self-described "Dumbass."
Where are your citations, Dumbass?
Where is your evidence?
Where is your logical argument?
>> 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."
>
> Misleading quoting, these statements were not made as presented.
You're lying again, Chickenshit.
> You always have to assume conspiracy hobbyists are going to be
> dishonest and they rarely disappoint. You always have to check the
> primary documents, you can never take what they present at face value.
>
>https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=13&tab=page
Amusing anyone who cares to check - this citation COMPLETELY
corroborates what was stated above.
Yet you've implied otherwise...
You're simply lying again.
> In context, it isn`t entirely clear that a 201 file were only be opened on CIA assets.
You're lying again, Chickenshit. What was the question, and what was
Egerter's answer?
WHY CAN'T YOU DOCUMENT YOUR LIES???
>> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
>
> Would have been more useful to link to Egerter`s HSCA deposition
> than a crackpot article.
Why? You still don't believe it.
And anyone interested can quickly locate her testimony online.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
>
> If being a CIA assert was a crime
trial shows that you're TERRIFIED of the facts in this case.
> does anyone think that this woman`s decades old uncorroborated
> information could convict him?
she stated it was? And that a jury trial would make such a finding?
Do you have a citation for that?
No.
And you never will - you're simply lying again...
> Yet to a conspiracy advocate like Ben it has the strength to establish it
> as fact.
Oswald was an intelligence asset. This has been stated by those who
are far more knowledgeable on the facts, and are indeed true
"experts."
This denial by Chickenshit is simply an example of the Dunning-Kruger
effect.
>> 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.
>
> Interesting to see this conspiracy hobbyist rush to where he is so
> desperate to go on the strength of nothing.
Where are your citations, Dumbass?
Where is your evidence?
Where is your logical argument?
>> 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."
>
> Misleading quoting, these statements were not made as presented.
> You always have to assume conspiracy hobbyists are going to be
> dishonest and they rarely disappoint. You always have to check the
> primary documents, you can never take what they present at face value.
>
>https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=13&tab=page
corroborates what was stated above.
Yet you've implied otherwise...
You're simply lying again.
> In context, it isn`t entirely clear that a 201 file were only be opened on CIA assets.
Egerter's answer?
WHY CAN'T YOU DOCUMENT YOUR LIES???
>> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
>
> Would have been more useful to link to Egerter`s HSCA deposition
> than a crackpot article.
And anyone interested can quickly locate her testimony online.
Bud
Apr 8, 2020, 2:00:50 PM4/8/20
to
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:25:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
> >
> > If being a CIA assert was a crime
>
>
> It's not. And trying to twist the facts into some sort of judicial
> trial shows that you're TERRIFIED of the facts in this case.
You are the one treating it as if what they woman said establishes it as fact. Certainly the bar for such a fantastic thing would be higher than "someone said". Does the strength of the information bear the weight of your assertion?
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
> >
> > If being a CIA assert was a crime
>
>
> It's not. And trying to twist the facts into some sort of judicial
> trial shows that you're TERRIFIED of the facts in this case.
> > does anyone think that this woman`s decades old uncorroborated
> > information could convict him?
>
>
> So you''re stating that she was lying,
> and that the CI/SIG wasn't what
> she stated it was? And that a jury trial would make such a finding?
>
> Do you have a citation for that?
>
> No.
>
> And you never will - you're simply lying again...
>
>
> > Yet to a conspiracy advocate like Ben it has the strength to establish it
> > as fact.
>
>
> This is, of course, merely one of many bits of evidence showing that
> Oswald was an intelligence asset. This has been stated by those who
> are far more knowledgeable on the facts, and are indeed true
> "experts."
Even if you assume that CIA was a CIA asset, how do you make the grand canyon leap to patsy in the Kennedy assassination. Looked like the writer used thin air to support this fantastic idea.
> Where is your evidence?
>
> Where is your logical argument?
> >> 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."
> >
> > Misleading quoting, these statements were not made as presented.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
Anyone hitting the link I provided will see there are several questions and answers given in between what was presented that were omitted.
> > You always have to assume conspiracy hobbyists are going to be
> > dishonest and they rarely disappoint. You always have to check the
> > primary documents, you can never take what they present at face value.
> >
> >https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=13&tab=page
>
>
>
> Amusing anyone who cares to check - this citation COMPLETELY
> corroborates what was stated above.
> Yet you've implied otherwise...
> You're simply lying again.
>
>
> > In context, it isn`t entirely clear that a 201 file were only be opened on CIA assets.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit. What was the question, and what was
> Egerter's answer?
"What is a 201 file."
And Egerter`s answer was...
"It is a personality file on an individual"
This occurs in between what your writer presented, with no indication it was omitted. Why was this exchange omitted?
Deceit comes to mind...
> WHY CAN'T YOU DOCUMENT YOUR LIES???
> >> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
> >
> > Would have been more useful to link to Egerter`s HSCA deposition
> > than a crackpot article.
>
>
> Why? You still don't believe it.
Ben Holmes
Apr 30, 2020, 1:47:39 PM4/30/20
to
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Why are you incapable of responding to **WHAT** I say, and not what
you pretend I've said?
>>> does anyone think that this woman`s decades old uncorroborated
>>> information could convict him?
>>
>> So you''re stating that she was lying,
>
> Wrong already.
Can't tell everyone what you really believe...
Embarrassed, aren't you?
>> and that the CI/SIG wasn't what
>> she stated it was? And that a jury trial would make such a finding?
>>
>> Do you have a citation for that?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> And you never will - you're simply lying again...
Looks like we have here *proof* that you lied.
>>> Yet to a conspiracy advocate like Ben it has the strength to establish it
>>> as fact.
>>
>>
>> This is, of course, merely one of many bits of evidence showing that
>> Oswald was an intelligence asset. This has been stated by those who
>> are far more knowledgeable on the facts, and are indeed true
>> "experts."
>
> Present what they actually can show. You know, make a persuasive
> argument, not vaguely allude to things.
Lie, and claim my statement was not absolutely correct.
>> This denial by Chickenshit is simply an example of the Dunning-Kruger
>> effect.
Anyone notice that Chickenshit couldn't?
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Interesting to see this conspiracy hobbyist rush to where he is so
>>> desperate to go on the strength of nothing.
>>
>> Another empty claim from the self-described "Dumbass."
>>
>> Where are your citations, Dumbass?
[Ad hominem deleted]
Looks like Chickenshit couldn't cite for his claims...
>> Where is your evidence?
>>
>> Where is your logical argument?
>
> I`m examining the ideas you present.
IOW's - you have none...
>>>> 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."
>>>
>>> Misleading quoting, these statements were not made as presented.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
[Ad hominem deleted.]
> Anyone hitting the link I provided will see there are several
> questions and answers given in between what was presented that were
> omitted.
You're lying, Chickenshit. Anyone clicking the link you gave will note
that the vast majority of the HSCA testimony was not there.
You're cherry-picking.
There's **NOTHING** in the omitted material that changes the point
being made, and YOU KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT - because otherwise you'd
have quoted whatever context changed the point made.
So you're simply a liar - trying to refute what was said *WITHOUT
ACTUALLY DOING IT.*
>>> You always have to assume conspiracy hobbyists are going to be
>>> dishonest and they rarely disappoint. You always have to check the
>>> primary documents, you can never take what they present at face value.
>>>
>>>https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=13&tab=page
>>
>>
>> Amusing anyone who cares to check - this citation COMPLETELY
>> corroborates what was stated above.
>
> The quoting was misleading, you are as deceitful as the author for not admitting this.
You're lying again, Chickenshit. You've been COMPLETELY UNABLE to show
anything "misleading" about it.
Nor will you in response to this as I CHALLENGE YOU TO SUPPORT YOUR
CLAIM WITH ACTUAL QUOTES.
>> Yet you've implied otherwise...
>
>> You're simply lying again.
>>
>>
>>> In context, it isn`t entirely clear that a 201 file were only be opened on CIA assets.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit. What was the question, and what was
>> Egerter's answer?
>
> The question was...
>
> "What is a 201 file."
>
> And Egerter`s answer was...
>
> "It is a personality file on an individual"
>
> This occurs in between what your writer presented, with no indication it was omitted. Why was this exchange omitted?
>
> Deceit comes to mind...
Indeed. Based on *YOUR* summary, no-one would question at all that
Oswald was involved with the CIA.
This is indeed deceit... the lying of omission.
>> WHY CAN'T YOU DOCUMENT YOUR LIES???
>
> I`m documenting yours. You are never going to be honest enough to
> admit that whoever wrote this article did some deceitful editing, but
> any interested reads should be able to do so easy enough.
The deceit was shown by you above.
You can't quote ANYTHING left out by the OP that shows any deceit of
any kind.
Nor have you.
Nor will you.
>>>> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
>>>
>>> Would have been more useful to link to Egerter`s HSCA deposition
>>> than a crackpot article.
>>
>> Why? You still don't believe it.
>
> I looked it up. I linked to it so other people could see it.
You didn't answer my question... Why the cowardice, Chickenshit?
If you don't believe her testimony, why did you link to it?
Run again, coward, and prove your cowardice...
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:25:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
>>>
>>> If being a CIA assert was a crime
>>
>>
>> It's not. And trying to twist the facts into some sort of judicial
>> trial shows that you're TERRIFIED of the facts in this case.
>
> You are the one treating it as if what they woman said establishes
> it as fact. Certainly the bar for such a fantastic thing would be
> higher than "someone said". Does the strength of the information bear
> the weight of your assertion?
There you go again, molesting your little brother...
>On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:25:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset
>>>
>>> If being a CIA assert was a crime
>>
>>
>> It's not. And trying to twist the facts into some sort of judicial
>> trial shows that you're TERRIFIED of the facts in this case.
>
> You are the one treating it as if what they woman said establishes
> it as fact. Certainly the bar for such a fantastic thing would be
> higher than "someone said". Does the strength of the information bear
> the weight of your assertion?
Why are you incapable of responding to **WHAT** I say, and not what
you pretend I've said?
>>> does anyone think that this woman`s decades old uncorroborated
>>> information could convict him?
>>
>> So you''re stating that she was lying,
>
> Wrong already.
Embarrassed, aren't you?
>> and that the CI/SIG wasn't what
>> she stated it was? And that a jury trial would make such a finding?
>>
>> Do you have a citation for that?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> And you never will - you're simply lying again...
>>> Yet to a conspiracy advocate like Ben it has the strength to establish it
>>> as fact.
>>
>>
>> This is, of course, merely one of many bits of evidence showing that
>> Oswald was an intelligence asset. This has been stated by those who
>> are far more knowledgeable on the facts, and are indeed true
>> "experts."
>
> Present what they actually can show. You know, make a persuasive
> argument, not vaguely allude to things.
>> This denial by Chickenshit is simply an example of the Dunning-Kruger
>> effect.
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Interesting to see this conspiracy hobbyist rush to where he is so
>>> desperate to go on the strength of nothing.
>>
>> Another empty claim from the self-described "Dumbass."
>>
>> Where are your citations, Dumbass?
Looks like Chickenshit couldn't cite for his claims...
>> Where is your evidence?
>>
>> Where is your logical argument?
>
> I`m examining the ideas you present.
>>>> 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."
>>>
>>> Misleading quoting, these statements were not made as presented.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
> Anyone hitting the link I provided will see there are several
> questions and answers given in between what was presented that were
> omitted.
that the vast majority of the HSCA testimony was not there.
You're cherry-picking.
There's **NOTHING** in the omitted material that changes the point
being made, and YOU KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT - because otherwise you'd
have quoted whatever context changed the point made.
So you're simply a liar - trying to refute what was said *WITHOUT
ACTUALLY DOING IT.*
>>> You always have to assume conspiracy hobbyists are going to be
>>> dishonest and they rarely disappoint. You always have to check the
>>> primary documents, you can never take what they present at face value.
>>>
>>>https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=13&tab=page
>>
>>
>> Amusing anyone who cares to check - this citation COMPLETELY
>> corroborates what was stated above.
>
> The quoting was misleading, you are as deceitful as the author for not admitting this.
anything "misleading" about it.
Nor will you in response to this as I CHALLENGE YOU TO SUPPORT YOUR
CLAIM WITH ACTUAL QUOTES.
>> Yet you've implied otherwise...
>
>> You're simply lying again.
>>
>>
>>> In context, it isn`t entirely clear that a 201 file were only be opened on CIA assets.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit. What was the question, and what was
>> Egerter's answer?
>
> The question was...
>
> "What is a 201 file."
>
> And Egerter`s answer was...
>
> "It is a personality file on an individual"
>
> This occurs in between what your writer presented, with no indication it was omitted. Why was this exchange omitted?
>
> Deceit comes to mind...
Oswald was involved with the CIA.
This is indeed deceit... the lying of omission.
>> WHY CAN'T YOU DOCUMENT YOUR LIES???
>
> I`m documenting yours. You are never going to be honest enough to
> admit that whoever wrote this article did some deceitful editing, but
> any interested reads should be able to do so easy enough.
You can't quote ANYTHING left out by the OP that shows any deceit of
any kind.
Nor have you.
Nor will you.
>>>> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk
>>>
>>> Would have been more useful to link to Egerter`s HSCA deposition
>>> than a crackpot article.
>>
>> Why? You still don't believe it.
>
> I looked it up. I linked to it so other people could see it.
If you don't believe her testimony, why did you link to it?
Run again, coward, and prove your cowardice...
0 new messages