How To Prove A Conspiracy - the mental meanderings of Huckster
Sienzant - originally posted on the deleted Amazon Forums.

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.

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.

A good example is the Autopsy Report... where Huckster absolutely
REFUSES to deal with the "A.B.C.D." claim...

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.

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?)

Indeed, he has frequently mentioned that he was disappointed in the
outright errors and misrepresentations of CT authors - yet refuses,
time and time again, to document any such examples. Knowing, as I do,
that Huckster will deny this, let me quote his exact words:

"As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
conspiracy, but not telling the full truth."

But give an example? As Huckster says: " Under no circumstances
should you attempt to point the claim in context, or quote any
clarifications by the author." So Huckster will never do this... (See
point 2 also.)

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.

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.

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.

It's amusing how many of these "points" by Huckster actually apply far
more to believers than to any critics...

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.

Another example is the claim that there's "no evidence" for a
pre-autopsy autopsy, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS STATED BY DR. HUMES,
AND QUOTED IN THE SIBERT ONEILL REPORT.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)