QUOTE (Lilly @ Jun 2 2008, 12:20 PM)

Do you mean where are the documents in question? There should be some place where we should be able to view the documents he's speaking about...seems suspect to me as well.
That is definitely suspicious.
I was thinking even more basic. This guy is supposed to be a whistleblower who is hiding his identity out of fear of the people on whom he is blowing the whistle. But there's enough information on film and in his testimony for any such people to identify him quite easily. So they could murder him (or whatever), and because he hid his identity from the public, they'd get away with it. The public wouldn't tie some random murdered guy to some secret agency unless they had reason to. This is why real whistleblowers come right out and say who they are to anyone who will listen. That is their only means of protection.
So the story doesn't wash. Then there is the convenient fact that since everything is anonymous hearsay, nothing can be verified or falsified, and no one is accountable for what is said. Much too convenient. This is not testimony.
That's why the "anonymous whistleblower" scenario is a red flag right off.
It's a little different if he points the way to actual evidence. In that case, he's an anonymous tipster. That doesn't seem to be the case here. We are asked to believe some anonymous somebody just because he says so.
I've also seen other videos with "Mr. X" that seemed laughably staged. Some bad acting was going on there.
Contrast Mr. X with the Disclosure witnesses.