ROBERT CARD SAID:
Dallas motorcycle cop James Chaney was not questioned by the FBI, or called before the WC. .... Being that Chaney had an excellent view of the victim, and he was law enforcement, why do you think Chaney was never questioned or called before the WC?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I can't answer your question. Nobody can. Nobody can say they KNOW for sure why James Chaney wasn't called by the Warren Commission.
You aren't actually implying that you KNOW with total certainty why Chaney wasn't called to appear before the WC, are you? If you are saying such a thing, you're being disingenuous.
My guess (i.e., opinion) would be that he wasn't called because the Commission didn't feel it was necessary to call him. (That's fairly obvious to me, seeing as how he wasn't called.)
ROBERT CARD SAID:
I'm not implying in anyway that I'm certain about any aspect of this case. I'm only asking you to be the same way. There could be innocent answers to anything we're discussing, but then again I'm seeing all kinds of contradictions in the WC, and DPD.
I have no clue who James Chaney is, or why he was not called before the WC, and in fact not questioned at all by the FBI until 1975. He was in a perfect position being only 4-6 feet away from JFK, and had a good view to the grassy knoll. There may be an innocent answer, I don't know, but you could at least agree with me, and say that it's quite weird that he was not called before the WC, or questioned by the FBI at all. The only other person with a better view would be CIA agent Jackie Kennedy. [LOL time.] I'm just asking for a thumbs up on a little major strangeness there. I think we all are.
Then there's your quotes to Bugliosi's book, where he appears to be contradicting himself when it comes to the DPD, and WC. I was living in Los Angeles at the time of the OJ trial. Each night about, Bugliosi gave a recap of the trial, and it was totally unprofessional how he tore apart the LAPD, and the lead prosecutor, Marcia Clark, and I forget the black guy's name. He portrayed all of them as being the biggest idiots to ever hit town. Night after night, nothing but how incompetent the prosecution was. But in Reclaiming History, the WC/DPD/FBI are the reincarnation of Sherlock Holmes. They're all geniuses. Something not right in Bugliosi.
RICH POPE SAID:
He [Lee Bowers] said the government tried to influence his testimony to fit their own opinions.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think Mark Lane did that---not "the Government".
RICH POPE SAID:
Not according to Lee Bowers. David, again, you don't know what you're talking about. Lee said the shots came from in front of the limo, not from the back.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Citation please.
RICH POPE SAID:
David Welsh, Ramparts (November, 1966)
Now, go and run and ask your community college professor friend what you are supposed to do now?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It would be nice to have the ACTUAL (ALLEGED) QUOTE from the lips of Lee E. Bowers, Jr.
Any chance you'd be willing to share that info with a lowly LNer, Richard?
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Here you go, David:
"These two men were standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near two trees which were in the area. And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. These two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there at the time of the shooting." --Lee Bowers
"...there was a flash of light or smoke" in the vicinity of where the two men were standing. This is in front of the limo.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Is the part in quotation marks [regarding "flash of light or smoke"] something that Bowers said in an FBI or Secret Service report? Or did you get that straight from Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" film?
BTW, Bowers never said he saw anyone with a gun.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Walter Rischel (Friend of Bowers): "He (Bowers) said he saw a car pull up, 2 men get out of the car, when they was carrying what appeared to be rifles."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I wonder how that hunk of pure fantasy managed to not be included in Mark Lane's conspiracy-riddled film in 1967? It sounds like something Lane would have loved.
RICH POPE SAID:
DVP wrecks everything. I'm just going to put him on ignore and move on with life.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Absolutely, he's here to wreck the site, and to stop legitimate discussion. I may do the ignore thing too.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What you just said is total nonsense, Robert. And it's totally unfair as well. I'm here to provide another (non-conspiracy) point-of-view on the evidence. Not everybody agrees with everything the JFK conspiracy theorists say, you know. There are a lot more "LNers" in the world than many CTers seem to want to admit.
BTW....
Please tell me, Bob, how my input here has come even close to "stopping legitimate discussion" at this forum?
Sure, many threads go "off topic" here, and I have participated in some of those threads. But I'm certainly not ALONE when those threads stray from the original topic. And even when a topic strays, what's stopping a CTer from putting it back on track again toward, as you phrased it, "legitimate discussion"? That's not an impossible mission, is it?
BTW #2....
And what ever happened to "freedom of speech", Bob? Don't I have a right to participate in this forum and give my own opinions about what the evidence shows? Or do you think this should be an "All CTer" JFK forum (like the Deep Politics Forum is)?
I'm a little tired of hearing about how I am on a mission to "wreck this site". That accusation, as I said, is totally wrong (and preposterous). And it's an offensive and wholly unwarranted accusation as well. I'm merely an "LNer" with a lot of opinions about the events of 11/22/63. And, quite frequently, I'll share them. What's wrong with that? This forum is, after all, a "JFK Assassination Debate" forum. Right?
So, Robert Card, when can I expect your apology? 😉
ROBERT CARD SAID:
If you were providing another point of view with evidence, I'd say OK. What you're doing is running away anytime you're cornered. A recent example would be the BBC Report on 911 that reported that WTC7 fell 22 minutes before it actually did. You run away when you're confronted with evidence and logic, like the James Chaney problem. It's a tactic you use hoping that good posters will leave, thereby stopping the discussion.
I don't care if you get things wrong, my only complaint is the personal attacks that are sometimes delivered in large type.
In just one month, I've shown you example after example of you using the 25 Rules of Disinformation. The only other person I can do that with is FC [Francois Carlier].
Freedom of speech issues always involve the government. You're free to go to almost any street corner and preach about anything you want. But this is a private website, and the owners have a right to run it any way they want. They can set rules on the behavior of posters.
What do I think the site should be? I think it should be a research and investigative site, and not a site of personal attacks.
This is supposedly one of the rules of this forum:
“No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members' opinions.”
David, what percentage of your posts contain personal insults? 30%? 40%? More? What about FC [Francois Carlier]? I realize that all you have is ad hom arguments, but I don't understand why management lets you get away with this.
Someone mentioned you should go on 'ignore', and that may be a good idea.
I always apologize when I've done something wrong, or posted wrong information, or hijacked a thread.
In your case, I'll apologize when the Great Pyramid of Giza is turned into a Burger King.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You don't know what you're saying, Bob. Since I've returned to this forum in 2010, I am always very careful about what I say to other Education Forum members here and I'm always careful about how I phrase things, because I know that this is a moderated forum and the owners won't tolerate any "personal attacks" on other members. And yet you're implying that up to 40% of my posts (maybe more?) "contain personal insults" directly against certain forum members???
I think perhaps you need to re-evaluate and revise your definition of "personal insult". Because if 40% of my posts did contain "personal insults" against the members here, I wouldn't be typing this message right now. I would have already been booted out of this place on my ear long ago.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
[When you use the word] DUH........ Now right there, that's a personal attack.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, it's not. Nothing of the kind. It's called "sarcasm". And virtually everyone here uses it, including almost all of the CTers here. (Just look and see.)
IMO, you need to grow a much thicker skin. You seem to get offended way too easily.
And, as I said, I've been practically walking on eggshells since 2010 around here---because I know that certain words and terms and "personal insults" are frowned upon heavily at this Internet location. Ergo, I watch my step. For example, I know not to use the dreaded "K" word around here. So I never do. (And don't think that's not a chore on my part.) 😁
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Calling someone a 'conspiracy fantasist' is also a personal attack.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I disagree. I think such a comment also falls (mostly) into the "sarcasm" or "mockery" categories. And, once again, virtually all "CTer" forum members utilize sarcasm, mockery, or wisecracking remarks when they are speaking to us lowly "LNers" like myself and Francois Carlier and Paul Baker and Fred Litwin, et al.
Allow me to share with you now a few of the things that have come out of the mouth of Jim DiEugenio at this forum over the last few years (and if you'd like to see more, just ask; I've got hundreds)....
"This is the typical three blind mice--Lancie Boy [Lance Payette], FC [Francois Carlier] and DVP--and their appeal to authority. That is, if the HSCA or the WC says something is true, then ipso facto it's true." -- James DiEugenio
"This guy [Fred Litwin] is a complete poseur. I did some work on him. He is the Canadian version of the useless carnival barker David Horowitz. .... From what I could find out, the guy [Litwin] made a lot of money in the computer field and then became a Culture Warrior up in Canada. He is trying to be their Bill O'Reilly. Like we need another Fox News clown in the JFK case. Ridiculous. .... If anything I was too soft on this guy [Litwin]. He gets on Ontario TV and recycles the GIGO from his book. .... Fred Litwin should be ashamed of himself. But he is a Culture Warrior. People like him and Daniel Pipes don't care about facts. In fact, they are actually at war with facts because they lead to an inconvenient political truth about America." -- James DiEugenio
"That ignorant and smart aleck bluster might make you feel good, (for what reason I do not know). And it may help you score points with the likes of FC [Francois Carlier], Reitzes and McAdams. But as far as a real world inquiry into the facts, it's just junior high school smart alecky stuff." -- James DiEugenio
"This is what I mean by the rarified air channel in which DVP exists. It's somewhat similar to the air pressure over the Bermuda Triangle." -- James DiEugenio
"This is a perfect illustration of what a zealot DVP really is. .... It's right there for anyone to see except a zealot like DVP. Zealots by definition cannot see." -- James DiEugenio
"If a man cannot be honest about something as basic as that, how can anyone believe him about anything? Except DVP, who with, such things as honesty do not matter. Which is why he is what he is." -- James DiEugenio
"It always astounds me the way that DVP contorts, stretches, and distorts both the evidence and the English language in his long failed attempt to prop up the indignities and disgraces that make up the Warren Report. Any objective person--which DVP does not even come close to qualifying as--would say that when someone who was not at the scene alters the first day affidavit of someone who was at the scene, and does so in a material way, then that is a completely unwarranted and unjustified alteration in the evidence trail." -- James DiEugenio
"What I am trying to show is just how bad this little circle of WC supporters really is, that is DVP, Parnell, and their occasional lawyer friend from Denver [sic], Lance." -- James DiEugenio
"Above is more pure gas from the bloviating machine [DVP] himself." -- James DiEugenio
"Davey loves to recycle more and more of his own BS." -- James DiEugenio
"[Jean] Davison is such a lousy researcher." -- James DiEugenio*
"It was just your [DVP's] usual gassy utterances from a professional bloviator." -- James DiEugenio
"I have always said that DVP is even worse than the Warren Commission." -- James DiEugenio
[End Quotes.]
Have you, Robert Card, ever even considered scolding Jim DiEugenio in the same manner in which you have admonished me like a little boy who has misbehaved on the playground for my alleged "personal attacks and insults"? I'd wager that such a thought had never even crossed your mind before today, had it? Jim would never be the subject of Robert Card's righteous indignation regarding this topic of "personal insults" being hurled at other forum members. And the reason Jim would never receive such treatment from Robert Card is very simple --- it's because James DiEugenio is a conspiracy theorist....and David Von Pein is not. It's as simple (and sad) as that.**
* Jean Davison is still a member here, and was a member at the time of Jim's above quote as well.
** Not that I personally think ANY of those things that Jim D. said above should be considered serious enough to get him thrown off the forum. Not even close. And Jim knows, just as I do, how far to push the envelope when it comes to "personal attacks" on other forum members. He knows when to pull it back a notch or two, just as I do. Because he knows that the moderators/owners will not stand for a lot of personal invective here. And, IMO, there hasn't really been a lot of "personal insults" between Jim and myself at this forum. There has been a bit of mud-slinging on occasion, yes. And heaps of sarcasm too (which, when used wisely, can be a sharper poke in the eye than a direct between-the-eyes insult). But there's been no heavy-hitting personal insults. If there had been, neither one of us would be here now.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Any idiot with a 50 plus IQ could see that there are major problems with the WC report. So Davey, I'm calling you out too, nobody who has studied this event could be that dumb as to say the WC, DPD, and FBI did great work.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's time for me to get out my Pot/Kettle icon here, I see. You just gave me a speech about all the various "personal insults" I've been dishing up toward CTers, and what do you do in your next breath? You use the words "idiot" and "dumb" in a comment that is obviously being aimed directly at me. Hilariously ironic indeed! And, yes, I realize that you prefaced your "idiot" remark with this handy disclaimer: "this is not a personal attack". Very clever. ~smirk~
But don't get me wrong, Robert. I'm not belly-aching or moaning about it. I'm just pointing out the hypocritical nature of your last remarks to me. I'm not offended in the least, however. In fact, I expect that kind of spirited give-and-take when I'm talking to a CTer on the Internet. But maybe, over the last 15 years, I've just grown a thicker skin than you have.
MARK KNIGHT SAID:
As one of the administrators here [at The Education Forum], I want to weigh in on part of this discussion. For the most part, I'm not a fan of Mr. von Pein [sic]. But I also think that, aside from our interpretations of the events surrounding the political assassinations of the 1960's, we might just get along in person.
In recent months Mr. von Pein [sic] has made a much better effort to not talk down to, demean, and insult those with whom he disagrees. And honestly, the moderators here are NOT around 24/7 due to the sheer impossibility of that task. But it's still better to look upon those who interpret the data differently than we do as simply people who see the weight of some of the data differently than others do.
In fact, if I'm ever in his neck of the woods, I might just seek out a "$5 fill-up" at his establishment...even if he isn't wearing a white suit and a string tie.
Who's right? Who's wrong? We may never have the opportunity to know the absolute truth in this lifetime, so why not enjoy the debate even if you disagree with 99% of the other person's interpretation of the evidence? Because I'm about 99% sure that if Mr. von Pein [sic; sigh] didn't enjoy the debate, he wouldn't come back. I'm about 99.999% sure he won't "convert" me, and about the same percentage sure that I won't bring him around to my interpretation of the data. But occasionally he makes a point I'd never previously considered...and I would hope that I have had the same effect on him once or twice.
And now we return you to your regularly scheduled forum, already in progress.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sorry, Mark, but I'm retired now. (Thank God.) So somebody else will have to sell you that $5 Fill-Up meal. (But it probably won't taste nearly as good as when I used to sell them.) 😁
ROBERT CARD SAID:
All those comments you’ve posted by Jim Di are as a result of you, FC, or Lance starting the personal attack.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, yeah, sure they are, Bob.
It's just as I predicted---you'll never criticize or scold a fellow conspiracy theorist. What a surprise.
(Oh, sorry.....Can I use an eyeroll without it being considered a horrendous "personal attack"?)
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Dave, I've been doing some research on how forum shills get paid, but I'm not finding out much. It sometimes happens right out in the open. There are some companies, or maybe a country that has received some bad publicity for something, and they send an army of posters out to balance out the views. They admit this.
I've seen paperwork on another site where the shills are paid $3.50 a comment, but that doesn't add up, it's too much I would think. But if it's to pay the company, and then it's divided up with all the other shills, then that would be about right.
I found another woman [who] works in the business, and she says that they come up with a formula that is based on the number of responses to the shill's comments, and then that's multiplied by the number of views. This would be from dozens of forums, and this sounds possible.
Do you know anything about this?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I know absolutely nothing about any of the things you just mentioned. Sorry.
It's quite clear from your recent posts, Robert, that you (for some reason) seem to think that I am a "paid forum shill" of some kind. I guess I should be a bit offended by such an accusation being thrown my way. But I'm not. As I said previously, I've grown a very thick skin when talking with JFK conspiracy believers over the years. So being called a "shill" or a "disinformation specialist" or a "Bugliosi boot-licker", etc., are things that I'm accustomed to seeing. None of them are true, of course. But they do make me smile. (I can't help but smile when I read such tripe.)
In actuality, my entire "JFK-related life" can be summed up in very few words, which is exactly what I did when I wrote the following paragraph for the "About The Authors" section at Amazon.com (for use on the Amazon site's page [and on a few other book seller's pages too] for the 2014 JFK book I helped main author Mel Ayton write)....
"David Von Pein has been interested in the JFK assassination for over 30 years. He has written extensively on the subject on the Internet and also operates several websites devoted to the assassination, including some sites featuring hundreds of hours of video and audio material associated with the life and death of President Kennedy. David was born in Richmond, Indiana, in 1961. He now lives in Mooresville, Indiana."
ROBERT CARD SAID:
All of those disinformation websites you have must cost a fortune to maintain.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Are you kidding? They cost nothing. Not a penny. I use Blogger.com. And you can create up to 100 blogs for free. (I'll never max out at 100, though. I've got only a mere 65.) :)
And, of course, YouTube is free to use too.
BTW, based on your own definition of these things, you just posted a "personal attack/insult" against me above when you used the words "disinformation websites". You didn't even notice the huge Pot/Kettle irony when you typed out that word "disinformation", did you? Amazingly hypocritical. Should I now run crying to the forum owners and insist that you be punished severely?
ROBERT CARD SAID:
You pour a lot of time and money into this.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Time --- yes. (Plenty of that.)
Money --- no. (Except for the computers I have to buy about every 6 or 7 years.)
ROBERT CARD SAID:
I wonder, you seem concerned when you say you’ve been ‘walking on eggshells’ since 2010. Is that because you’d lose some income if you were removed from this site?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nope. Nothing of the kind. I was only referring to the fact that this is a "moderated" forum. And everybody has to watch their step a little more at a moderated forum, including you, me, and everybody else.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
You and FC need to be exposed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I hate to disappoint you, Robert.....but I am not employed by any "shill" agency of any kind. And I never have been so employed. Nobody is counting my posts at Langley and nobody is sending me tons of money every month just because I happen to believe that Oswald acted alone. (I kind of wish somebody would heap some money on me, but unfortunately that's never been the case.) ~sad sigh~
So, Bob, the sad truth (from your CTer POV) is --- A person who posts frequently on Internet JFK forums CAN, indeed, be an "LNer" here in the 21st century WITHOUT being on the U.S. Government payroll.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Things have changed in the past few days. I always thought you were a True Believer, but I’ve since suspected something else. You’ve spent hours almost every day for 20 years on CT sites accomplishing nothing for proof of your side, why? Why is that worth it to you?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You have a short memory, Robert. I answered that same question (from you), at this very forum, just eight days ago, in this post.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Wouldn't it be nice if deputy Attorney General Nicholas de Katzenbach thought the same way as I do? He doesn't seem interested in doing a true investigation, does he?
[...]
Dave, don't you think that Katzenbach, a Yale Law School trained attorney, could've used some critical thinking skills? The day after LHO is murdered, he says the 'public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin'. What can you find wrong with this LNer's approach to the question of LHO? Sounds like his mind is made up to me. What kind of lawyers are they turning out at Yale?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In my opinion, the Katzenbach memo of 11/25/63 has been misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists ----> CLICK HERE.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
That's not a personal attack [regarding Robert Card saying that DVP operates "disinformation websites"] when I've shown you countless times here how you use the Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation.
What's more disturbing is that on your website, where you're copying comments from this site, you do not copy the full thread, so you're cherry picking the comments. You add an answer, and you pretend to debunk the original comment. Sometimes, like in my case, my first comment is prefacing another question or statement, so it's a conversation starter; it's not something to be debunked. Why don't you copy all of the comments in a discussion?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Because I don't comment MYSELF on EVERY comment within a discussion. And I use my site to mainly archive the discussions (or portions thereof) that I personally choose to involve myself in. But, Robert, I always include a link (or links) on my website to the source of the original discussion, which are always hyperlinked to the date(s) at the bottom of each page (if the source discussion link is still active, that is). And even when a thread has vanished from the Internet, I still make an effort to recover the original discussion link via the handy "Wayback Machine" available at Archive.org. So I'm providing easy and direct access to ALL of the discussions at my site, should anyone care to click on them.
ROBERT CARD SAID:
Now something else I just found out, and that's because I just read through this thread again, is that you write some small comment, and then an hour or two later, you go back and add much more information, so that the original reader never sees this addition, because he's taken to the newer comments. It may be just a coincidence, but I'll be watching out for further use of this trick.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, you're right. That seems to happen a lot with my posts. I'll admit that forthrightly. Many times, it's just correcting a typo. But many times, like you said, I've thought of something else I wanted to add---so I do. Surely that has happened to many people here. I know, for example, that David Lifton oftentimes goes back and edits his lengthy posts, adding many more comments to his original submission.
It's not any kind of a "trick", however. It's just normal for me. I doubt you could find more than a handful of my 5,000+ posts here that don't contain at least one "Edit" timestamp at the bottom of them. But my add-ons are certainly not an evil effort on my part to "trick" anybody. I just think of more to say later on.
David Von Pein
January 7-12, 2019 [Original discussion has been deleted by the EF owner.]
