Forums

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.

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.

R. Anderson says:

So if you'll notice, he (on the one hand) wants to say that she "followed federal rules" so as not to ID Oswald as CIA.......but on the other hand he wanted to say [in Part IV] that she clearly indicated LHO was CIA by opening the file in the first place!

Pretty laughable (as usual). And if you'll note......he had no real answer for the fact he originally presented her testimony as solid gold......and then turned around and started calling her a liar.

Same old benny.

Me:
It seems Mr. Anderson WANTS to miss the point.

Garry Puffer Wrote:

R. Anderson Wrote:So if you'll notice, he (on the one hand) wants to say that she "followed federal rules" so as not to ID Oswald as CIA.......but on the other hand he wanted to say [in Part IV] that she clearly indicated LHO was CIA by opening the file in the first place!

Pretty laughable (as usual). And if you'll note......he had no real answer for the fact he originally presented her testimony as solid gold......and then turned around and started calling her a liar.

Same old benny.

It seems Mr. Anderson WANTS to miss the point.

Of course he does.

He wants to believe that Egerter was lying when she stated that the only purpose of the CI/SIG was to investigate suspect CIA employees, yet was telling the absolute truth in claiming that Oswald wasn't an employee.

Of course, the truth demonstrates that Anderson simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

FIrst of all, Mrs. Egerter never denied that Oswald was a CIA employee... here's the relevant testimony:

Mr. Goldsmith: Do you have any reason to believe that Oswald ever worked in some capacity for CIA?
Mrs. Egerter: No, I have no reason to believe that.
...
Mr. Goldsmith: Is it possible that he worked for the agency and you didn't know about it?
Mrs. Egerter: That is quite possible. I did not know.

"That is quite possible. I did not know."

Once again:

"That is quite possible. I did not know."

Hardly the ringing denial that Anderson envisions...

Of course, she did know... based on her own admission that the only purpose for their department was to investigate CIA employees - she must have known. This is only reasonable and credible. Anderson cannot explain the facts... so he runs from them.