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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:06:27?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

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

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

As I pointed out in the link above:

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

Posted right here, or in the past...

I addressed your Egerter claims...

Can you name this logical fallacy?

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

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

So your mother doesn't mind you molesting kids? That's exactly what
your post implies. Do you understand the problem with this kind of
"logic?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:47?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

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

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

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

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:06:27?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

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

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

As I pointed out in the link above:

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

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

Run coward... RUN!!!

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

Can you name this logical fallacy?

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

Chickenshit would label it a lie.

Thus far...

You've been unable to answer my questions.

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

Posted right here, or in the past...

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

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

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

You're simply lying again.

Rather blatantly....

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

ROTFLMAO!!!

I quoted what Egerter said.

You don't BELIEVE what Egerter said.

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

You simply don't believe the evidence.

I addressed your Egerter claims...

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Still shifting the burden, Ben.

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

No...

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

What I actually said...

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

That fact tells the tale.

The fact is you don’t want to talk about Egerter

You're the coward, not I.

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

because she specifically disavowed any knowledge of an Agency connection here with Oswald here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=31&search=Egerter
— quote —
Q: Is Lee Harvey Oswald's name on the list?
A: Yes.
Q: ... were any of the individuals on this list employees of the Centrall Intelligence Agency?
A: I don't think any were employed by the Agency... to the best of my knowledge anyway.
Q: Were any of them agents, assets or sources of the CIA?
A: Not to my knowledge.
— unquote —

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


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

As you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!


Of course, we know you're a coward:

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

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

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 1:31:10?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote: >>> I'm shure he does. And that the McCone Rowley memo has long been known to be a forgery.
Really ?
Name the document expert who examined the document and concluded that it was a forgery.

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

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

Of course not.

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

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

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

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 3:54:38?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 7:27:08?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>> The fact is you don’t want to talk about Egerter, because she specifically disavowed any knowledge of an Agency connection here with Oswald here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=31&search=Egerter
— quote —
Q: Is Lee Harvey Oswald's name on the list?
A: Yes.
Q: ... were any of the individuals on this list employees of the Centrall Intelligence Agency?
A: I don't think any were employed by the Agency... to the best of my knowledge anyway.
Q: Were any of them agents, assets or sources of the CIA?
A: Not to my knowledge.
— unquote —
She said she had no knowledge Oswald was connected to the CIA. See above quote. Run, delete, call me names, repeat.

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

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

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

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

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

Watch folks, as Huckster continues to lie...

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

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

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

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

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

He then extends the argument further...

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

Then prove what a coward you are here:

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:47:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:47?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

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

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

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

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:06:27?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

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

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

As I pointed out in the link above:

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

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

Run coward... RUN!!!

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

Can you name this logical fallacy?

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

Chickenshit would label it a lie.

Thus far...

You've been unable to answer my questions.

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

Posted right here, or in the past...

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

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

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

You're simply lying again.

Rather blatantly....

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

ROTFLMAO!!!

I quoted what Egerter said.

You don't BELIEVE what Egerter said.

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

You simply don't believe the evidence.

I addressed your Egerter claims...

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Still shifting the burden, Ben.

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

No...

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

What I actually said...

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

That fact tells the tale.

The fact is you don’t want to talk about Egerter

You're the coward, not I.

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

because she specifically disavowed any knowledge of an Agency connection here with Oswald here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600#relPageId=31&search=Egerter
— quote —
Q: Is Lee Harvey Oswald's name on the list?
A: Yes.
Q: ... were any of the individuals on this list employees of the Centrall Intelligence Agency?
A: I don't think any were employed by the Agency... to the best of my knowledge anyway.
Q: Were any of them agents, assets or sources of the CIA?
A: Not to my knowledge.
— unquote —

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


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

As you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!


Of course, we know you're a coward:

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

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

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:37:17?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

There you go again, molesting your own mother.

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

Quite the pervert, aren't you?

Coward, too...

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)