07-02-2016, 01:22 AM
Anna Lewis is like the people in a couple villages in England who, to this day, repeat either what they saw or what their parents saw in WW2, namely extremely high tech tanks with giant dishes on them, along with what looked like "modern" delta wing jets. And just over the fields there was a whole army, and a new village, all built for the army.
And the point is, they are telling the truth as they understand it. They really did see things, things that they were not in a position to critically evaluate.
What they ACTUALLY saw was a mengerie of inflatable, cardboard, plywood and papier mache props, all calculated to create a deceptive idea in the Germans' minds about where the staging of an invasion of Europe was going to occur. The earlier sightings of high tech super weapons was the initial experiment with making fake technology, and that occurred well before the later D-Day fakery but in the same general area.
The fake village was actually fake barracks, but a road sign was "accidentally" left on a signpost when the others were removed, pointing to a nonexistent village.
In this way a series of real sightings of real events became a local tradition, an oral history, which was correct in all its superficial observations - but still 100% wrong.
We can take two views of Anna Lewis before drilling down using liespotting, etc. and verifying with reference to documents and the testimony of others.
View 1: she is a liar. Possibly a congenital liar, ie someone who lies with the ease of a psychotic. Intelligence doesn't enter into it.
View 2: she is truthful. She saw what she describes. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORT JVB. JVB can still be 100% lying. The Lewis testimony records a meeting with people she has subsequently identified. Is JVB the person she met? We don't know and can't verify that.
Three different "journalists" all claim to be the journalist LHO spoke to just after the shooting at the TSBD. LHO himself said he spoke to a secret service agent who showed him his "book" of credentials. Who is telling the truth? The journalists tell the story after having been first told what happened by investigators for the government who CONVINCED them that their own "lying eyes" were wrong.
What I am saying is that the Lewis interviews, as with all of this stuff, are not automatically dichotomous yes-no boolean true-false records of events.
The woman we know as JVB (and in fact we don't know her at all, no one does) might not even be the "original" JVB.
Not trying to be an ass here, but it's how intel would look at it. You don't buy any part of a story, you confirm every step of the chain. The whole point of this kind of situation is to make people buy it and stop checking.
And the point is, they are telling the truth as they understand it. They really did see things, things that they were not in a position to critically evaluate.
What they ACTUALLY saw was a mengerie of inflatable, cardboard, plywood and papier mache props, all calculated to create a deceptive idea in the Germans' minds about where the staging of an invasion of Europe was going to occur. The earlier sightings of high tech super weapons was the initial experiment with making fake technology, and that occurred well before the later D-Day fakery but in the same general area.
The fake village was actually fake barracks, but a road sign was "accidentally" left on a signpost when the others were removed, pointing to a nonexistent village.
In this way a series of real sightings of real events became a local tradition, an oral history, which was correct in all its superficial observations - but still 100% wrong.
We can take two views of Anna Lewis before drilling down using liespotting, etc. and verifying with reference to documents and the testimony of others.
View 1: she is a liar. Possibly a congenital liar, ie someone who lies with the ease of a psychotic. Intelligence doesn't enter into it.
View 2: she is truthful. She saw what she describes. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORT JVB. JVB can still be 100% lying. The Lewis testimony records a meeting with people she has subsequently identified. Is JVB the person she met? We don't know and can't verify that.
Three different "journalists" all claim to be the journalist LHO spoke to just after the shooting at the TSBD. LHO himself said he spoke to a secret service agent who showed him his "book" of credentials. Who is telling the truth? The journalists tell the story after having been first told what happened by investigators for the government who CONVINCED them that their own "lying eyes" were wrong.
What I am saying is that the Lewis interviews, as with all of this stuff, are not automatically dichotomous yes-no boolean true-false records of events.
The woman we know as JVB (and in fact we don't know her at all, no one does) might not even be the "original" JVB.
Not trying to be an ass here, but it's how intel would look at it. You don't buy any part of a story, you confirm every step of the chain. The whole point of this kind of situation is to make people buy it and stop checking.