[Ben Holmes]

Garry Puffer Wrote:Dex Olsen says:
Then by all means, R, please provide an example or 2.

R. Anderson says:
Probably the best one had to be his presentation of Egerter's testimony (in Part IV). Right off the bat he presented it as totally true and proving Oswald was CIA. Well, I guess he was counting on me not knowing it because when I pointed out she indeed specifically denied that he was CIA in her testimony (the part he *didn't* present)....he *then* started calling her a liar.

It was like that all the time with him. He did the same thing with Wilcott's testimony. It was up to me to point out the part where the very people questioning him blew a hole in his story.....and he had no real answer.

And really he had the same issue the rest of you seem to (no offense): no real knowledge of the real world and how things work. Just today AC tried to say courts don't admit evidence that have breaks in the chain....and as I pointed out: that just isn't so. Benny's deal was how supposedly air-tight military security is. (Hopefully names like Bradley Manning, Jonathan Pollard, Daniel Ellsberg, etc ring a few bells. In fact, the very fact we've heard of the so-called Roswell event is because officers involved (sworn to secrecy) wouldn't shut up about it.)

And really that's the tip of the iceberg......probably his best was his feeble defense of Mark Lane. He of course saw nothing underhanded in Lane's treatment of Brennan's eyesight in 'Rush to Judgment' (omitting the fact that Brennan's was in fact farsighted).

So if you haven't seen this stuff......you haven't been looking.
........................................................................................................................................

So, Ben, what say you? Somehow I feel Mr. Anderson might be leaving something out.

Of course he's leaving things out...

(How 'cleaver' of you to notice this!)

Anderson is arguing that because a CIA employee followed federal rules and refused to identify an agent - that she was "lying" - and thus nothing she said can be used.

This is an interesting proposition... Howard Brennan lied about what he saw on 11/22/63 - so we can now completely and totally discount Howard Brennan? I'm betting that Anderson would absolutely reject that... thus demonstrating the hypocrisy he's demonstrating.

The major problem here is that we have testimony on the record that the CI/SIG, which was documenting and keeping an eye on Oswald, only had one purpose:

Quote: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."

Anderson has been unable to refute that simple fact... if the purpose of CI/SIG was to investigate agency employees - THEN WHAT WERE THEY DOING WITH LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

Anderson cannot answer this ... so he ran away.

P.S. Here's the original post that Anderson tried to obfuscate reposted here.