[Ben Holmes]

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Actually, between 1965 (Whitewash by Weisberg) and the early 1980's, I was a believer in a conspiracy that had kill JFK. In the early 1980's, dissatisfied with the various interpretations of the evidence I was reading in conspiracy books, I decided to research it from the top. I purchased a set of the Warren Commission volumes from the "Presidents Box Bookshop" and a copy of the HSCA volumes from the Government Printing Office. I read through all the testimony, and found, to my surprise, that the testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books. I ultimate flipped 180 degrees by the mid-1980's to believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone and unaided. I am open to conversion back, but it's not going to take the same old BS claims echoed here that you read in conspiracy books. I already know the problems with those claims. 

This is actually a common assertion by believers... yet when challenged, they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give any examples of "testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books."

And when provable examples of lies told by the Warren Commission Report about their own collected testimony - these very same believers run for the hills.

The "hidden" clipboard is a good example for Henry... who quite desperately maintains that there's nothing wrong with the Warren Commission twisting testimony as dramatically as they did in this case.

Why can't believers tell the truth?

[LeeAbbott]

(08-22-2016, 01:57 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Actually, between 1965 (Whitewash by Weisberg) and the early 1980's, I was a believer in a conspiracy that had kill JFK. In the early 1980's, dissatisfied with the various interpretations of the evidence I was reading in conspiracy books, I decided to research it from the top. I purchased a set of the Warren Commission volumes from the "Presidents Box Bookshop" and a copy of the HSCA volumes from the Government Printing Office. I read through all the testimony, and found, to my surprise, that the testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books. I ultimate flipped 180 degrees by the mid-1980's to believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone and unaided. I am open to conversion back, but it's not going to take the same old BS claims echoed here that you read in conspiracy books. I already know the problems with those claims. 

This is actually a common assertion by believers... yet when challenged, they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give any examples of "testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books."

And when provable examples of lies told by the Warren Commission Report about their own collected testimony - these very same believers run for the hills.

The "hidden" clipboard is a good example for Henry... who quite desperately maintains that there's nothing wrong with the Warren Commission twisting testimony as dramatically as they did in this case.

Why can't believers tell the truth?

Personally, I'd prefer Henry to remain a believer, along with Dale, Debunker, Mogul and R. Anderson.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-22-2016, 05:28 PM)LeeAbbott Wrote:  

(08-22-2016, 01:57 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Actually, between 1965 (Whitewash by Weisberg) and the early 1980's, I was a believer in a conspiracy that had kill JFK. In the early 1980's, dissatisfied with the various interpretations of the evidence I was reading in conspiracy books, I decided to research it from the top. I purchased a set of the Warren Commission volumes from the "Presidents Box Bookshop" and a copy of the HSCA volumes from the Government Printing Office. I read through all the testimony, and found, to my surprise, that the testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books. I ultimate flipped 180 degrees by the mid-1980's to believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone and unaided. I am open to conversion back, but it's not going to take the same old BS claims echoed here that you read in conspiracy books. I already know the problems with those claims. 

This is actually a common assertion by believers... yet when challenged, they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give any examples of "testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books."

And when provable examples of lies told by the Warren Commission Report about their own collected testimony - these very same believers run for the hills.

The "hidden" clipboard is a good example for Henry... who quite desperately maintains that there's nothing wrong with the Warren Commission twisting testimony as dramatically as they did in this case.

Why can't believers tell the truth?

Personally, I'd prefer Henry to remain a believer, along with Dale, Debunker, Mogul and R. Anderson.

(Lee - put a space between your first & last name... then you'll be able to log on!)

I'm happy with Henry as well... indeed, I enjoy people like Henry, Patrick, & John McAdams... all of whom are exceptionally well grounded in the basic evidence in this case, and ALL who lie blatantly time and time again.

Such as Patrick's recent lie that the McAdam's tabulation was "unassailable" - then who refused to retract that statement when I quite clearly demonstrated that it was wrong.

Having people who are highly knowledgeable on the case evidence, yet who cannot refute what critics say - shows just how big their problem is.

Even their most recent hero, Vincent Bugliosi - whom many believers thought would be their savior, turned out to be just like all the rest... liars. There's NO KNOWN BOOK that defends the Warren Commission's theory that doesn't contain outright lies on the evidence.

Even believers such as Patrick prefer to recommend books written in the 60's or 70's - before much of the evidence became public... then refuse to publicly defend their recommendations when critics step up to the plate.
 

---

Getting back to the original point... Henry (and indeed, any other believer who's made the same claim) will never step up and provide examples of this 'testimony twisted beyond recognition'... they make these assertions knowing that they can't back 'em up.