The interesting cases are pieces which cite a large number of verifiable truths, but then skew specific bits. I think I referenced my Karen Hudes rebuttal on this post already, if not, it's in HN's search from a few weeks back.
Ruppert's another case. His history's solid. His conclusions a bit shakier (at least for the timeline).
Ruppert's another case. His history's solid. His conclusions a bit shakier (at least for the timeline).