J.G. LEYDEN SAID:
Isn't it interesting, DVP, that a guy like "aeffects," who cravenly hides behind
a screen name, is trying to unmask you as somebody else.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes. And it seems somewhat remarkable to me how other CTers can get
sucked into believing the "fake identity" theories too. Like the recent examples involving me at Black Op Radio.
Somebody sent Len Osanic an e-mail (I assume it was our retarded
nutcase here in the asylum, Mr. Healy, although I could be wrong about
that, I admit, because Osanic didn't say who sent him the e-mail)...and
in this e-mail, the person told Osanic that I just might be Dave Reitzes
in Internet disguise.
And right away--without a single bit of research or second thought--it
would appear as if Osanic takes this e-mail info as fact....and then
Lenny spreads this false information to one of his frequent guests --
James DiEugenio (who has an "aka" all his own, IMO -- "Mr. Sominex" --
because this guy is one of the best sleeping aids on the Internet when
you get him wound up; it seems that even host Osanic has a hard time
staying awake during Jimmy's lengthy CT-laden filibusters).
And after hearing of my supposed "dual" personality, DiEugenio begins
to believe it too. And guess what evidence DiEugenio has to back up
this rumor? Are you sitting down?.....
James Di. thinks that Dave Reitzes and I might very well might be the
same person because my Blog page is linked on both Reitzes' website
and on John McAdams' site.
That's the totality of the evidence that DiEugenio uses to suggest
that the e-mail rumor is true.
My question for James on that "evidence" would be -- Why would David
Reitzes want to hide behind a fake name in order to post a separate
Blog site on his OWN website? Why not just post all of the "DVP"
articles as his own (as "Reitzes") on the site with Dave Reitzes' name
on the front as "webmaster"? What's the point of the "Double Daves"
from Mr. Reitzes' POV?
That's why I never have understood why anybody would choose to hide
behind false identities when posting things on the Internet. Because
if a person really believes what they are saying is good stuff, and
true stuff, and not covered with BS....then why would they want some
other "person" with a false name to get the credit for something
that's REALLY GOOD and something that they believe is the truth?
(That's the way I feel anyway.)
In fact, a couple of years ago, some people might have noticed that I
actually went to the trouble to make my real name and real identity
known even MORE to the public on the forums I frequently visit, when I
changed all of my usernames from "David VP" (which is what I used on
these Google Groups forums until 2006) to my full name.
I don't want some "Joe Alias" to get credit for what I write. Why
WOULD I want that? I'm proud of my contributions to the JFK forums
(small in scope though they may be when compared to giants like Vince
Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Ken Rahn, Gary Mack, Dave Reitzes,
Jean Davison, and many others who possess immense amounts of common
sense and logic when it comes to the JFK case).
Anyway, I just thought it rather remarkable to find that Mr. DiEugenio
is so willing to accept such a false notion like that DVP/Reitzes
rumor. It just makes me wonder how many other times in his JFK
research he has accepted things at face value (and said so on a public
forum or Internet radio broadcast like Black Op Radio), without doing
a bit of double-checking himself?
And DiEugenio is a very bright guy. I don't dispute that fact at all.
He's got a ton of information about this case at his fingertips, no
doubt about that. But it's what he DOES with this vast amount of JFK
knowledge that I am skeptical of.
His "CT" interpretation of many items of hard, physical evidence in
the Kennedy case is very hard to swallow...and, frankly, his
interpretations regarding the evidence are just downright silly. He'd
be laughed at by the jury at Oswald's trial (had there been one) if he
uttered some of his beliefs about the evidence in front of such a jury.
And James never seems to GO ANYWHERE with any the loose thread ends
that he says exist in the Kennedy case. The loose threads just kind of
lay there--untouched by anything around them. James, like many other
CTers, apparently thinks that raising a "suspicion" regarding some
peripheral matter is enough to taint the WHOLE CASE against Lee Harvey
Oswald.
Time for a VB replay (again)......
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut,
as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained."
-- Vincent Bugliosi
David Von Pein
November 18, 2008
