DUNCAN MacRAE SAID:
[When posting messages to jfkassassinationforum.com]...Do not add links to forums where only the CT side or only the LN side of the JFK Assassination argument is allowed to be discussed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The above rule would therefore apply to the following four "forums" only (at least these are the only 4 current online "forums" I have encountered that have totally shut off the "LN" voice entirely; and there are zero "LN Only" forums, as far as I am aware)....
1.) Deep Politics Forum
2.) Greg Parker's "Re-Open Kennedy Case" forum
3.) Wim Dankbaar's "JFK Murder Solved" forum
4.) Greg Burnham's new forum
I've never seen a single "LNer" post anything at any of the forums listed above.
Am I missing any others? I don't think I am. And I visit all JFK forums on a daily basis.
EDIT -- Addendum....
Another "forum" that probably has never accepted an "LN" member is Len Osanic's Black Op Radio forum. (Although I haven't been to that forum in a long time. It was infected with a virus a while back, and I've been afraid to go there ever since.)
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
I have posted dissenting opinions on the Deep Politics Forum. If this cite [sic] were for either CT or LN opinions only, then my posts would have vanished. However, these dissenting opinions are still on the board.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So?
Sure, differing opinions among the "CTer" ranks is permitted. But Dawn Meredith is on record as saying she would never permit an "LNer" to register at DPF. She said that very thing as recently as February 20, 2014:
"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time."
-- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; 2/20/14
Ergo, my previous comment is still 100% true:
"I've never seen a single "LNer" post anything at any of the forums listed above."
And the last time I checked, Herbert Blenner was most certainly not an "LNer".
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
You are color blind.
I am a Coverup Theorist who acknowledges the absence of credible evidence of conspiracy.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So you think Oswald acted alone, do you Herb?
"Like it or not, the medical evidence documents and independently discusses two wounds of the back." -- Herbert Blenner
Do you think Oswald caused BOTH of the JFK back wounds you talk about in the above quote, Herbert? (Including the one non-existent back wound you invented in your own mind.)
Anyway, no matter, a "Cover-up Theorist" is also a "Conspiracy Theorist". Just a different name being placed on it. And a "cover-up theorist" would certainly still be welcomed with open arms by the fantasists running the DPF.
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
I did not invent a back wound. The medical panels described a 7 mm by 10 mm wound with its longer axis nearly perpendicular to the long axis of the body. However, Commander Humes and his autopsy report discussed a 7 mm by 4 mm back wound with its longer axis approximately parallel to the same long axis of the body.
The artists, Rydberg and Dox, illustrated the conflicting directions of the longer axes of these wounds.
Fox-5 shows two distinct objects with relative dimensions and orientations of their longer axes that match the conflicting descriptions of the back wounds.
See the following link for details.
http://hdblenner.com/coldfusion.htm
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You DID invent a second back wound, Herb. And you know it. There is not ONE piece of documentation in the official record that even SUGGESTS the existence on John Kennedy's body of a SECOND bullet hole in his back. YOU, yourself, have interpreted the measurements and testimony in a way that YOU want to interpret those things.
But the official record is crystal clear---from the autopsy report, to Clark's Panel, to the Warren Commission, to the Rockefeller Commission, to the HSCA---and that is: JFK had ONE wound in his upper back. Not two.
You're not only a "Cover-up Theorist", Herbert, you're a "Wound Revisionist Theorist" as well.
And since Herbert "acknowledges the absence of credible evidence of conspiracy", it makes me wonder WHY there was any need whatsoever for a bunch of people to start "covering up" a lot of things relating to JFK's murder?
If there's no "credible evidence of conspiracy" to begin with, why the "cover-up", Herb?
REPLAY:
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I've never seen a single "LNer" post anything at any of the forums listed above.
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
Maybe they have, but you don't know their aliases.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh sure, Tony. And nobody at the DPF forum or the other "CT" forums would possibly be able to figure out that the person using the "alias" was REALLY an "LNer" because of the alias, right?
IOW, the person's COMMENTS about Oswald doing it alone wouldn't be any kind of a hint to Dawn Meredith and the other fantasists at the all-CT forums merely because the poster was using a fake name.
You're too funny, Tony.
(Does Tony ever sort things out in his mind before posting? I often wonder---like now.)
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
I know of one guy named David Von Pein who only allows pro-WC articles on his Web site/blog.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Gee, I wonder why?
Could it be because David Von Pein is an "LNer" and he is the only author permitted to post at his sites/blogs? (Which is precisely the way DVP wants it and always will.)
Can you imagine the misery I'd have if I permitted "CT" authors to have the ability to arbitrarily post their junk on MY sites? Yikes! Why would ANY blog owner ever do that? I sure won't.
In fact, I'm not sure I know of any blog owner who actually allows other people (other than the blog owner/creator) to post new articles on his/her blog. If you know of any blog owner who allows such multi-person posting, please provide the link. I'd like to see that.
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
Some of the people here are too lame to figure it out.
I have my own Web site. I have put articles on it from WC defenders. It's called OPEN RESEARCH. Something you've never heard of. All you know is bias. Jeff Morley allows WC defenders to say stupid things on his blog.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Tony,
I've linked to many pro-conspiracy articles on my sites. And I've copied and pasted many additional CT arguments from Internet forums into my webpages (my "Assorted JFK Arguments" series is up to almost 1200 parts now).
So I've given the "Conspiracy" side a voice. Plenty of voice, in fact. So maybe you should investigate things a little better before shooting off your mouth with silly comments like this one --
"It's called OPEN RESEARCH. Something you've never heard of. All you know is bias." -- W. Anthony Marsh
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
And McAdams has cited some of my articles, but only when they are not blatantly conspiratorial. And he loves to quote anything I say which criticizes another conspiracy believer. The old Divide and Conquer strategy.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm now kinda sad that Marsh has been quoted in the book that Mel Ayton and I have coming out very soon. (Believe me, that was Mel's idea to quote Mr. Marsh in the book, not mine.)
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
Say it ain't so, Joe. I hope he quotes me calling you a liar. I doubt he'll quote my article proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Wouldn't want the general public to know about that, eh?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I can't even remember right now what the topic was, Tony. But I do remembering cringing a little bit when I saw that Mel had quoted Anthony Marsh for our lone-assassin book. I didn't much like that idea at all (and I still don't). But, I'm just the second author. Mel is the main author, so I don't have complete control of the book's contents. But fortunately I was able to convince Mel to leave out a couple of other things that also made me cringe even worse than your quote.
David Von Pein
September 22, 2014
