+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: How To Prove A Conspiracy - By Henry Sienzant (/Thread-How-To-Prove-A-Conspiracy-By-Henry-Sienzant)
How To Prove A Conspiracy - By Henry Sienzant - Ben Holmes - 07-04-2016
Found on the Amazon Forums, and I thought it was worth responding to:
Henry Sienzant Wrote:1. Cutting and pasting claims from conspiracy sites are okay. In fact, they are preferable to actually debating the facts of the assassination because you don't have to actually exert any effort, while your opponent has the hobson's choice of either ignoring the post or expending effort to rebut it.This is similar to the tactic that believers use, where they are constantly forcing you to re-visit old evidence... you mention Oswald's impersonation in Mexico City? Nope... prove it all over again. Simply ignore the massive amount of evidence showing that Oswald was impersonated. This is what believers do... and again, it's the Hobson's choice of reposting all the evidence again, or ignoring the post. The other rather infamous trick is to concentrate on the poster, rather than the evidence or statements that he's brought up. Speaking of Hobson's choice, Henry's favorite tactic is to post a really long post, delving into many different areas... and a real response is easily made, but simply takes so long that often it's never made.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:2. Use the "Name it and Claim It" routine frequently. That's where you post an assertion and ignore all requests for you to back it up with evidence. Simply keep repeating the assertion as if it's true.This is a favorite assertion of believers, who then turn and run in the opposite direction when the evidence IS posted. Most frequently though, believers demand an impossible level of proof, and simply deny that the evidence exists. The best way to deal with believers on this issue is to force them to acknowledge the evidence, point by point. Ironically, the anonymous troll who first brought the "Name it and Claim it" assertion to the forums, absolutely NEVER himself delves into the evidence in this case... and other believers will never publicly acknowledge this.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:3. Name-calling is your best option when you actually engage a person who posts evidence to rebut your claims. If it appears their evidence is correct and their interpretation of it is reasonable, start calling them names. "Shill" is a good one to use. Suggest the only reason they are even discussing this is because they are getting recompensed to do so. Suggest they are traitors to their country, and accessories after the fact.This isn't allowed in forums that are aimed at real debate... such as this one. Thus, believers are stripped of their major weapon, which is to focus the attention on the poster, and not the evidence. This happens time and time again - since the evidence simply isn't in favor of the Warren Commission - so it's by far easier to attack the poster, rather than explain the evidence. One example would be John McAdams, who for YEARS has refused to name the largest foreign object that can be seen in the AP X-ray. He knows that the moment he does, the followup question is why the prosectors never saw it. Because this is such a powerful weapon, believers are rarely seen in forums such as this one that don't allow their favorite weapon.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:4. Hearsay is preferred to direct testimony. A rumor is acceptable as well. If you're going to utilize direct testimony, be certain to take it out of context so it appears to be saying something that points to the conspiracy you favor. Under no circumstances should you attempt to point the claim in context, or quote any clarifications by the author. The Katzenbach memo is a sterling example of this. Model your points on this one. Anything written by Mark Lane is also very good.
I can destroy the Warren Commission Report using ONLY the direct testimony found in the 26 volumes. Believers, on the other hand, like to use testimony & statements from decades later, as long as it supports their faith... so Henry is being quite the hypocrite here. If Henry could produce any examples of what he claims, I'd be happy to discount it just as quickly as he would - since critics only need the ACTUAL evidence... (anyone want to help Henry out here?)
Henry Sienzant Wrote:5. The more time that has elapsed since the event, the better the testimony. Thus, in the case of the Kennedy assassination, utilize the ARRB testimony recorded in the 1990s, rather than the 1978 testimony of the same witnesses recorded by the HSCA. And the HSCA testimony is preferable to the 1964 testimony of the Warren Commission. Ignore all complaints that human memory is fallible and malleable, simply repeat the testimony.I repeat, Henry's a hypocrite here. Many is the time that he and others have referenced statements made decades later. As long as it supports their faith, such use is perfectly permitted. But if it's a statement made about facts THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION NEVER BOTHERED TO EXAMINE, and contradicts the Warren Commission, then, and only then, is it objectionable. It's truly amusing that believers are seemingly ignorant of anything that happened after 1964. If the HSCA had fallen in line with the Warren Commission - we'd be speaking of the HSCA today... but that didn't happen - so believers are stuck in the past.
I have no problems discounting decades later statements that contradict the earliest statements - but the same can't be said of believers... whose sole concern is whether or not the statement supports their faith.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:6. Logical Fallacies are encouraged. When making a claim, forget it's your responsibility to back it up with evidence (see point 2). If you have to try to rebut someone's evidence, the use of the straw man is encouraged. If all else fails, try a red herring or ad hominem. Sometimes those will work to distract the original poster from the point at hand and deflect from the strength of his argument.Henry loves logical fallacies, he uses them far more than most. Perhaps that's because he's most familiar with them. There is no statement that can be made about the evidence in this case that Henry cannot attribute to a logical fallacy of one sort or another. Henry would be far more credible here if he were consistent in pointing out his own logical fallacies, and those of fellow believers. But until he does, this is simply another method believers use to avoid the actual evidence in this case.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:7. Never concede a point. Even if it's clearly shown that your argument is wrong, and you're utilizing any of the points above erroneously to advance your claim, don't retract it. Just move on to another point (red herring). After sufficient time has elapsed, repeat your claim as if it was never rebutted. If enough time has elapsed, perhaps new readers who never saw the original rebuttal will believe your claim. If the poster who rebutted your claim is still around and rebuts it again, repeat the "Change the subject, Wait and Repeat" process until he gets tired of rebutting your claim. Eventually he will move on or die.A perfect example, as I'm positive Henry will agree, is the matter of the "hidden" clipboard. Henry claims to have refuted this, and apparently doesn't like it when I bring it up time and time again. By his standards, I'm not "conceding" his nonsensical arguments against the fact that the Warren Commission lied about the clipboard. Yet he simply cannot find any evidence that the Warren Commission could have used, other than the person who found the clipboard - who clearly testified that it was found out in the open. Yet, should Henry run across this again, he'll label it as something he's already refuted - despite the fact that he's not come close to refuting this.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:8. Phrase your claim in the form of the loaded question. That way you don't have to defend it and you still get the conspiracy argument before the readers. Here's an example, "Isn't it true that the Warren Commission lied repeatedly in the Warren Report?" This gives you deniability if anyone asks you to prove that claim. You can honestly assert you made no claim, you just asked an innocent question. You can then utilize their questioning of you to call them "too sensitive" or "too invested in the Warren Report" and the like.The converse of this is the believer's constant refusal to accept ANYTHING that the Warren Commission did not pronounce on... a good recent example is Oswald being impersonated... several believers jumped at that topic, and demanded evidence, stating that none exists. And when evidence is given, it's denounced, and a new round of demands for evidence ensue.
There's simply no doubt whatsoever that the Warren Commission lied. Indeed, the previously mentioned clipboard is an excellent example. But entire books have been written to expose the lies of the Warren Commission - and it's difficult to do more than point to extremely obvious examples. Other less obvious examples take hundreds of words to explain and demonstrate. This works in Henry's favor... all he needs do is deny the obvious ones.