info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Another inaccuracy found on David Von Pein's website
225 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
Jul 9, 2016, 9:32:57 PM7/9/16
to
This concerns the interval of time from when Oswald was shot to when the
ambulance attendants were loading him into the ambulance. David says 4
minutes. It was actually 5 and 1/2.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/07/i-found-another-inaccurate-claim-on.html
ambulance attendants were loading him into the ambulance. David says 4
minutes. It was actually 5 and 1/2.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/07/i-found-another-inaccurate-claim-on.html
David Von Pein
Jul 10, 2016, 10:27:52 PM7/10/16
to
You're right, Ralph. It was, indeed, 5.5 minutes and not 4 minutes. When I
wrote that caption for that photo at my website, I was timing it from my
copy of the KRLD-TV footage, which *is* edited slightly (as Ralph
correctly pointed out), and I failed to take note of the edit. (It was
edited by whoever put it up on the FOX/KDFW site years ago; and that's
where I got it from.)
I've corrected my caption on my site, Ralph. Thanks for pointing it out
too---because I *hate* inaccurate stuff like that on my sites, and I
appreciate it when someone (correctly) points out any errors.
wrote that caption for that photo at my website, I was timing it from my
copy of the KRLD-TV footage, which *is* edited slightly (as Ralph
correctly pointed out), and I failed to take note of the edit. (It was
edited by whoever put it up on the FOX/KDFW site years ago; and that's
where I got it from.)
I've corrected my caption on my site, Ralph. Thanks for pointing it out
too---because I *hate* inaccurate stuff like that on my sites, and I
appreciate it when someone (correctly) points out any errors.
Ralph Cinque
Jul 11, 2016, 10:29:37 PM7/11/16
to
Thanks a lot, David. But, since accuracy is vital in this field of
endeavor, why round down to 5 minutes, as you have it on your website? If
you could put 5.5 in this response, why not put 5.5 on your site? And why
not get rid of that edited footage which you describe as "raw"? You can
use the other one that I posted. Don't go half-way. Fix it completely.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/07/david-von-pein-youre-right-ralph.html
endeavor, why round down to 5 minutes, as you have it on your website? If
you could put 5.5 in this response, why not put 5.5 on your site? And why
not get rid of that edited footage which you describe as "raw"? You can
use the other one that I posted. Don't go half-way. Fix it completely.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/07/david-von-pein-youre-right-ralph.html
David Von Pein
Jul 11, 2016, 10:30:12 PM7/11/16
to
Ralph,
I think rounding off to a WHOLE minute number (five) is fine for the
purposes of my Photo Gallery site (which is the site in question).
And just because there's a small 1.5-minute edit in the KRLD footage, that
doesn't mean that the footage isn't still "raw" type footage. It's raw
footage regardless of the edit.
"Raw" equalling this meaning:
"KRLD kept the tape rolling even though that footage obviously wasn't
meant to be shown to the public."
And most of it wasn't aired. Hence, the announcers [such as Huffaker and
Benton] can be heard talking to the control booth and to each other.
That's what I meant by "Raw". It wasn't a reference necessarily to "Uncut"
or "Unedited" footage.
I think rounding off to a WHOLE minute number (five) is fine for the
purposes of my Photo Gallery site (which is the site in question).
And just because there's a small 1.5-minute edit in the KRLD footage, that
doesn't mean that the footage isn't still "raw" type footage. It's raw
footage regardless of the edit.
"Raw" equalling this meaning:
"KRLD kept the tape rolling even though that footage obviously wasn't
meant to be shown to the public."
And most of it wasn't aired. Hence, the announcers [such as Huffaker and
Benton] can be heard talking to the control booth and to each other.
That's what I meant by "Raw". It wasn't a reference necessarily to "Uncut"
or "Unedited" footage.
Edward Bauer
Jul 11, 2016, 10:30:37 PM7/11/16
to
the ambulance first arrived on the scene? My source said 3 minutes but
that would mean 2,5 minutes before he was placed into it.
Ace Kefford
Jul 11, 2016, 10:51:54 PM7/11/16
to
Anthony Marsh
Jul 12, 2016, 9:05:03 AM7/12/16
to
On 7/10/2016 10:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> You're right, Ralph. It was, indeed, 5.5 minutes and not 4 minutes. When I
Who in this universe says 5.5 minutes? Only the Ferengi.
> You're right, Ralph. It was, indeed, 5.5 minutes and not 4 minutes. When I
WTF difference does it make if it was 5.5 minutes or 4.799 minutes?
> wrote that caption for that photo at my website, I was timing it from my
> copy of the KRLD-TV footage, which *is* edited slightly (as Ralph
> correctly pointed out), and I failed to take note of the edit. (It was
> edited by whoever put it up on the FOX/KDFW site years ago; and that's
> where I got it from.)
>
You often "borrow" things without knowing where they came from. It's
called research.
> I've corrected my caption on my site, Ralph. Thanks for pointing it out
> too---because I *hate* inaccurate stuff like that on my sites, and I
> appreciate it when someone (correctly) points out any errors.
>
your errors. Maybe next universe.
bigdog
Jul 12, 2016, 9:12:16 AM7/12/16
to
On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:32:57 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
David Von Pein
Jul 12, 2016, 11:13:06 PM7/12/16
to
after the shot was fired (which makes it 11:25 AM CST). The shooting
occurs 2 hrs., 45 min. into the video below. The ambulance is first seen
on camera at 2:49:45. And I don't think there are any breaks in the
footage during that time....
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E6ed_4-hx6cHBUY3IzdnNiRUk/view
Ralph Cinque
Jul 12, 2016, 11:15:35 PM7/12/16
to
You're rationalizing, David. Your video conflicts with your claim. Do you
think I am the only person who is actually going to check it? Why don't
you respect your visitors more than you do?
In a case like this, there is no excuse for not being accurate. If it's
5.5 minutes, then you should can easily say 5.5 minutes. Furthermore, in
Math, one typically rounds UP when you get to .5. But, you're not going to
say 6 minutes, are you? Of course not. But, you'll gladly deceive by half
a minute, won't you? Why? It's because you have low standards. It is
because you are first and foremost a propagandist. You are certainly not
an uncompromising pursuer of truth.
As I said, for all we know, even the other one was edited. So, it may be
more than 5.5 minutes.
When a man is bleeding to death, every minute counts, and so does every
half minute.
think I am the only person who is actually going to check it? Why don't
you respect your visitors more than you do?
In a case like this, there is no excuse for not being accurate. If it's
5.5 minutes, then you should can easily say 5.5 minutes. Furthermore, in
Math, one typically rounds UP when you get to .5. But, you're not going to
say 6 minutes, are you? Of course not. But, you'll gladly deceive by half
a minute, won't you? Why? It's because you have low standards. It is
because you are first and foremost a propagandist. You are certainly not
an uncompromising pursuer of truth.
As I said, for all we know, even the other one was edited. So, it may be
more than 5.5 minutes.
When a man is bleeding to death, every minute counts, and so does every
half minute.
Ace Kefford
Jul 12, 2016, 11:55:35 PM7/12/16
to
Ralph Cinque
Jul 12, 2016, 11:56:30 PM7/12/16
to
When a man is bleeding to death, every second counts. So yes, whether it
was 4 minutes of 5.5 minutes matters. It matters a lot.
was 4 minutes of 5.5 minutes matters. It matters a lot.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 13, 2016, 11:02:34 AM7/13/16
to
We don't speak metric here.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 13, 2016, 11:02:56 AM7/13/16
to
On 7/11/2016 10:30 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> I think rounding off to a WHOLE minute number (five) is fine for the
> purposes of my Photo Gallery site (which is the site in question).
>
> And just because there's a small 1.5-minute edit in the KRLD footage, that
WFT is 1.5 minutes?
> Ralph,
>
> I think rounding off to a WHOLE minute number (five) is fine for the
> purposes of my Photo Gallery site (which is the site in question).
>
> And just because there's a small 1.5-minute edit in the KRLD footage, that
You mean 90 seconds?
Don't bring that metric crap in here.
> doesn't mean that the footage isn't still "raw" type footage. It's raw
> footage regardless of the edit.
>
> "Raw" equalling this meaning:
>
> "KRLD kept the tape rolling even though that footage obviously wasn't
> meant to be shown to the public."
>
> And most of it wasn't aired. Hence, the announcers [such as Huffaker and
> Benton] can be heard talking to the control booth and to each other.
> That's what I meant by "Raw". It wasn't a reference necessarily to "Uncut"
> or "Unedited" footage.
>
It's a technical film term.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 13, 2016, 11:03:04 AM7/13/16
to
On 7/11/2016 10:29 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Thanks a lot, David. But, since accuracy is vital in this field of
> endeavor, why round down to 5 minutes, as you have it on your website? If
> you could put 5.5 in this response, why not put 5.5 on your site? And why
> not get rid of that edited footage which you describe as "raw"? You can
> use the other one that I posted. Don't go half-way. Fix it completely.
Don't go .5 of the way. And don't go all metric on us.
> Thanks a lot, David. But, since accuracy is vital in this field of
> endeavor, why round down to 5 minutes, as you have it on your website? If
> you could put 5.5 in this response, why not put 5.5 on your site? And why
> not get rid of that edited footage which you describe as "raw"? You can
> use the other one that I posted. Don't go half-way. Fix it completely.
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/07/david-von-pein-youre-right-ralph.html
>
Jason Burke
Jul 13, 2016, 9:55:59 PM7/13/16
to
On 7/12/2016 8:56 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> When a man is bleeding to death, every second counts. So yes, whether it
> was 4 minutes of 5.5 minutes matters. It matters a lot.
>
Still o-fer-JFK, eh, Raff*?
> When a man is bleeding to death, every second counts. So yes, whether it
> was 4 minutes of 5.5 minutes matters. It matters a lot.
>
Jason Burke
Jul 13, 2016, 9:56:17 PM7/13/16
to
Edward Bauer
Jul 13, 2016, 9:56:56 PM7/13/16
to
portion (ambulance but no shooting) with the later taped replay (shooting
but no ambulance) we get:
2:56:29 Oswald shot
2:56:38 overlap point - replay
2:45:30 same overlap point - live
2:49:45 ambulance first arrives
So we have 9 seconds + 4:15 = 4:24. I’d like to round that down
to 4 minutes but poor Lee is bleeding to death!
David Von Pein
Jul 14, 2016, 5:15:54 PM7/14/16
to
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Your video conflicts with your claim.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Your video conflicts with your claim.
I've now removed the video from that webpage. So there's no "conflict" at
all.
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Do you think I am the only person who is actually going to check it?
Well, actually, yes. Not a single other person (before you) has ever
informed me that they timed it out exactly (while utilizing the unedited
TV footage). And I doubt very much that anyone has ever done so (before
you did it). *I* certainly hadn't, because if I had, you wouldn't have
been able to catch that error on my site in the first place, because I
would have fixed it myself.
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
Why don't you respect your visitors more than you do?
I do respect accuracy. Very much so, in fact. As I said in an earlier
post, I despise incorrect information on my sites. I hate it more than
anything. And I'll always correct factual errors whenever I see them (or
when they are pointed out to me)---just like I did in this instance when I
changed "four minutes" to "five minutes". And I thanked you for pointing
out that error. And I still do thank you for it. Because it's such a small
thing that appears on just one of my thousands of webpages, I might not
have ever caught that error myself.
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
In a case like this, there is no excuse for not being accurate. If it's
5.5 minutes, then you should can easily say 5.5 minutes. Furthermore, in
Math, one typically rounds UP when you get to .5. But, you're not going to
say 6 minutes, are you? Of course not. But, you'll gladly deceive by half
a minute, won't you? Why?
Even if I used the round-off method, I would still say FIVE minutes,
because it had not yet reached the ".5" mark of the next minute. I just
timed it again, and exactly 5 minutes and 25 seconds elapse between the
time of Ruby's gunshot and the time when Oswald's head disappears into the
ambulance.
You can time it for yourself if you'd like, using the two videos below.
The first one is from the CBS coverage that was actually aired, which
doesn't show the instant of the shooting, but that instant can be
determined by comparing it to the second video below, which is the raw
(and mostly unaired) KRLD-TV videotape footage which shows the moment of
the shooting.
In the first (aired) video, these are the stats (and I can't believe I
actually did this just to satisfy a rabid conspiracy hobbyist named Ralph
Cinque, but I did it anyway, just for kicks)....
OSWALD IS SHOT --- At the 2:45:21 mark in the first video (even though the
shooting isn't shown live, when adjusting the time backward, it would come
out to the 2:45:21 mark).
OSWALD PUT INTO AMBULANCE --- At the 2:50:46 mark in the top video below.
TOTAL TIME ELAPSED --- 5 Minutes, 25 Seconds.
Ergo, it had not yet reached the *5:30* mark since the shooting occurred,
therefore rounding DOWN to FIVE minutes for this particular event is
perfectly reasonable and accurate, which is just what I did for the
purposes of my webpage at my Kennedy Gallery site/blog (also linked
below)....
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E6ed_4-hx6cHBUY3IzdnNiRUk/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_b3owb1VvN1A4dUU/view
http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/07/kennedy-gallery-340.html
RALPH CINQUE SAID:
It's because you have low standards. It is because you are first and
foremost a propagandist. You are certainly not an uncompromising pursuer
of truth.
Jesus H. Christ, what a bunch of bull!
I've wasted enough time on this silliness, Ralph. You can go away now. I'm
done with this ridiculous topic. I still do thank you, however, for
pointing out what was a totally UNimportant error (in the larger scheme of
things) that I had on my website. I've now corrected that small mistake,
and the revision is perfectly satisfactory and accurate. If you disagree,
that's your problem, Ralph, not mine.
bpete1969
Jul 14, 2016, 5:19:11 PM7/14/16
to
On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:32:57 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
websites and yours is full of them?
You have been shown to be wrong numerous times and yet you correct
nothing.
Jason Burke
Jul 15, 2016, 2:04:47 PM7/15/16
to
Bud
Jul 15, 2016, 2:05:14 PM7/15/16
to
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:56:30 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> When a man is bleeding to death, every second counts. So yes, whether it
> was 4 minutes of 5.5 minutes matters. It matters a lot.
Not after he dies.
> When a man is bleeding to death, every second counts. So yes, whether it
> was 4 minutes of 5.5 minutes matters. It matters a lot.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 15, 2016, 2:22:48 PM7/15/16
to
On 7/14/2016 5:15 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> Your video conflicts with your claim.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I've now removed the video from that webpage. So there's no "conflict" at
> all.
>
>
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> Do you think I am the only person who is actually going to check it?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, actually, yes. Not a single other person (before you) has ever
> informed me that they timed it out exactly (while utilizing the unedited
Maybe because you are protected and we are censored. I am not allowed to
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> Your video conflicts with your claim.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I've now removed the video from that webpage. So there's no "conflict" at
> all.
>
>
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> Do you think I am the only person who is actually going to check it?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, actually, yes. Not a single other person (before you) has ever
> informed me that they timed it out exactly (while utilizing the unedited
call you stupid.
> TV footage). And I doubt very much that anyone has ever done so (before
> you did it). *I* certainly hadn't, because if I had, you wouldn't have
> been able to catch that error on my site in the first place, because I
> would have fixed it myself.
>
How long did it take McAdams to correct his error which no one else but
me was smart enough to point out? Certainly not you, because you are a
loyal minion.
>
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> Why don't you respect your visitors more than you do?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I do respect accuracy. Very much so, in fact. As I said in an earlier
> post, I despise incorrect information on my sites. I hate it more than
> anything. And I'll always correct factual errors whenever I see them (or
> when they are pointed out to me)---just like I did in this instance when I
> changed "four minutes" to "five minutes". And I thanked you for pointing
> out that error. And I still do thank you for it. Because it's such a small
> thing that appears on just one of my thousands of webpages, I might not
> have ever caught that error myself.
>
>
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> In a case like this, there is no excuse for not being accurate. If it's
> 5.5 minutes, then you should can easily say 5.5 minutes. Furthermore, in
> Math, one typically rounds UP when you get to .5. But, you're not going to
> say 6 minutes, are you? Of course not. But, you'll gladly deceive by half
> a minute, won't you? Why?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Even if I used the round-off method, I would still say FIVE minutes,
You got something against seconds?
> because it had not yet reached the ".5" mark of the next minute. I just
> timed it again, and exactly 5 minutes and 25 seconds elapse between the
> time of Ruby's gunshot and the time when Oswald's head disappears into the
> ambulance.
>
> You can time it for yourself if you'd like, using the two videos below.
> The first one is from the CBS coverage that was actually aired, which
> doesn't show the instant of the shooting, but that instant can be
> determined by comparing it to the second video below, which is the raw
> (and mostly unaired) KRLD-TV videotape footage which shows the moment of
> the shooting.
>
> In the first (aired) video, these are the stats (and I can't believe I
> actually did this just to satisfy a rabid conspiracy hobbyist named Ralph
> Cinque, but I did it anyway, just for kicks)....
>
windshield? Only a conspiracy kook would do that.
> OSWALD IS SHOT --- At the 2:45:21 mark in the first video (even though the
> shooting isn't shown live, when adjusting the time backward, it would come
> out to the 2:45:21 mark).
>
> OSWALD PUT INTO AMBULANCE --- At the 2:50:46 mark in the top video below.
>
> TOTAL TIME ELAPSED --- 5 Minutes, 25 Seconds.
>
> Ergo, it had not yet reached the *5:30* mark since the shooting occurred,
> therefore rounding DOWN to FIVE minutes for this particular event is
> perfectly reasonable and accurate, which is just what I did for the
> purposes of my webpage at my Kennedy Gallery site/blog (also linked
> below)....
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E6ed_4-hx6cHBUY3IzdnNiRUk/view
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_b3owb1VvN1A4dUU/view
>
> http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/07/kennedy-gallery-340.html
>
>
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> It's because you have low standards. It is because you are first and
> foremost a propagandist. You are certainly not an uncompromising pursuer
> of truth.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Jesus H. Christ, what a bunch of bull!
>
> I've wasted enough time on this silliness, Ralph. You can go away now. I'm
> done with this ridiculous topic. I still do thank you, however, for
> pointing out what was a totally UNimportant error (in the larger scheme of
> things) that I had on my website. I've now corrected that small mistake,
> and the revision is perfectly satisfactory and accurate. If you disagree,
> that's your problem, Ralph, not mine.
>
McAdams wouldn't bother doing that.
Ace Kefford
Jul 16, 2016, 12:59:33 AM7/16/16
to
one's view of what happened two days before in Dealey Plaza. Re-open the
case!
David Von Pein
Jul 16, 2016, 10:44:41 AM7/16/16
to
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
You are...a propagandist.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's the second time in this exact same thread that a CTer has called me
a "propagandist"....
"...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist." -- R.
Cinque; 7/12/16
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/rb8vcWu0WMA/oI-ezllgAAAJ
Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams? I didn't think such
a direct between-the-eyes insult was permitted here at aaj. It seems as
though that term comes mighty close to coming out and calling someone an
outright "liar".
However, I don't want you to misunderstand my stance on this either. I'm
not crying or complaining about it in any way, John. Not for a second. In
fact, I kind of like it when these conspiracy-happy clowns* call me things
like "propagandist" and "shill" and "disinfo agent". I always make sure to
include those laughable insults when I transfer such posts to my own
archives at my site. (Like the example below.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1153.html
* I hope that term is permitted here at aaj too. If it's not, John, then
please change "conspiracy-happy clowns" to just "conspiracists". Thank
you.
I'm merely asking about it to gain information about what words and terms
are permissible here and which ones aren't. Until today, I hadn't thought
it was permissible to come right out and say "...you are first and
foremost a propagandist...", which is what Tony Marsh just did above.
But, maybe I'm mistaken and that term *has* been allowed here in the past.
I just don't remember that word (while being aimed directly at a member of
the aaj forum) being permitted by the moderators here before.
No big deal to me either way. I was just curious since both Cinque and
Marsh decided to pull that word out of their grab bag of silliness in two
different posts in this very same discussion in messages directly aimed at
me.
And while we're on the subject of silly CTers....let's have a few laughs
by taking a look at what one of Mr. McAdams' adversaries at Jeff Morley's
"JFK Facts" site, Willy Whitten, has said about me recently:
"Von Pein is clearly a madman. .... What a dumb jerk you are, VP. ....
You can keep fighting the truth of this until you drop dead, Von Pein.
It's your own vile legacy." -- Willy Whitten; July 2016
Obviously, those remarks above didn't originate here at the moderated aaj
newsgroup. :-) They began at Amazon.com, and ended up on my website too:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1150.html
You are...a propagandist.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's the second time in this exact same thread that a CTer has called me
a "propagandist"....
"...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist." -- R.
Cinque; 7/12/16
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/rb8vcWu0WMA/oI-ezllgAAAJ
Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams? I didn't think such
a direct between-the-eyes insult was permitted here at aaj. It seems as
though that term comes mighty close to coming out and calling someone an
outright "liar".
However, I don't want you to misunderstand my stance on this either. I'm
not crying or complaining about it in any way, John. Not for a second. In
fact, I kind of like it when these conspiracy-happy clowns* call me things
like "propagandist" and "shill" and "disinfo agent". I always make sure to
include those laughable insults when I transfer such posts to my own
archives at my site. (Like the example below.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1153.html
* I hope that term is permitted here at aaj too. If it's not, John, then
please change "conspiracy-happy clowns" to just "conspiracists". Thank
you.
I'm merely asking about it to gain information about what words and terms
are permissible here and which ones aren't. Until today, I hadn't thought
it was permissible to come right out and say "...you are first and
foremost a propagandist...", which is what Tony Marsh just did above.
But, maybe I'm mistaken and that term *has* been allowed here in the past.
I just don't remember that word (while being aimed directly at a member of
the aaj forum) being permitted by the moderators here before.
No big deal to me either way. I was just curious since both Cinque and
Marsh decided to pull that word out of their grab bag of silliness in two
different posts in this very same discussion in messages directly aimed at
me.
And while we're on the subject of silly CTers....let's have a few laughs
by taking a look at what one of Mr. McAdams' adversaries at Jeff Morley's
"JFK Facts" site, Willy Whitten, has said about me recently:
"Von Pein is clearly a madman. .... What a dumb jerk you are, VP. ....
You can keep fighting the truth of this until you drop dead, Von Pein.
It's your own vile legacy." -- Willy Whitten; July 2016
Obviously, those remarks above didn't originate here at the moderated aaj
newsgroup. :-) They began at Amazon.com, and ended up on my website too:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1150.html
Bud
Jul 17, 2016, 9:18:01 PM7/17/16
to
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> You are...a propagandist.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's the second time in this exact same thread that a CTer has called me
> a "propagandist"....
>
> "...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist." -- R.
> Cinque; 7/12/16
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/rb8vcWu0WMA/oI-ezllgAAAJ
>
> Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams?
It seems to me that .John made an appeal a while back for people to
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> You are...a propagandist.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's the second time in this exact same thread that a CTer has called me
> a "propagandist"....
>
> "...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist." -- R.
> Cinque; 7/12/16
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/rb8vcWu0WMA/oI-ezllgAAAJ
>
> Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams?
start being more civil with one another. When that didn`t happen he seemed
to give up and things got a lot more lax.
I personally don`t mind a little edge.
> I didn't think such
> a direct between-the-eyes insult was permitted here at aaj. It seems as
> though that term comes mighty close to coming out and calling someone an
> outright "liar".
everyone posting here...
"a person who promotes or publicizes a particular organization or cause."
David Von Pein
Jul 18, 2016, 5:28:24 PM7/18/16
to
BUD SAID:
It seems to me that John [McAdams] made an appeal a while back for people
to start being more civil with one another. When that didn't happen, he
I agree. I don't mind it either.
BUD SAID:
It [the term "propagandist"] is not really even an insult. In fact, it
Well, yes, speaking in a literal "dictionary" sense, you are correct, Bud.
But to look at it from another angle (i.e., from my POV as an "LNer") ---
I don't recall *ever* having called a conspiracy theorist a
"propagandist". If anyone can prove me wrong about that, maybe they can
point me to a post in which I used that particular word when talking about
a JFK CTer. If such a post exists, I have forgotten about it.
In short, when you call someone a "propagandist", you are most certainly
NOT paying that person a compliment. You are, in effect, insulting them.
And in the case of a JFK CTer calling an LNer a "propagandist", I don't
think it takes a genius to figure out what they are *really* calling them.
In other words, when Ralph and Tony called me (point blank) a
"propagandist" earlier in this discussion, I kinda doubt that either one
of them possessed the following mindset when they were uttering that word:
**You, DVP, are a propagandist for the Lone Assassin scenario....but you
are a totally honest propagandist.**
LOL.
"Propagandist" is just another word for "Liar" when it comes to a
conspiracy theorist's dictionary. I know it, and so does everybody else
who frequents any of the Internet JFK forums.
It seems to me that John [McAdams] made an appeal a while back for people
to start being more civil with one another. When that didn't happen, he
seemed to give up and things got a lot more lax.
I personally don't mind a little edge.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I personally don't mind a little edge.
I agree. I don't mind it either.
BUD SAID:
It [the term "propagandist"] is not really even an insult. In fact, it
applies to just about everyone posting here...
"a person who promotes or publicizes a particular organization or cause."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"a person who promotes or publicizes a particular organization or cause."
Well, yes, speaking in a literal "dictionary" sense, you are correct, Bud.
But to look at it from another angle (i.e., from my POV as an "LNer") ---
I don't recall *ever* having called a conspiracy theorist a
"propagandist". If anyone can prove me wrong about that, maybe they can
point me to a post in which I used that particular word when talking about
a JFK CTer. If such a post exists, I have forgotten about it.
In short, when you call someone a "propagandist", you are most certainly
NOT paying that person a compliment. You are, in effect, insulting them.
And in the case of a JFK CTer calling an LNer a "propagandist", I don't
think it takes a genius to figure out what they are *really* calling them.
In other words, when Ralph and Tony called me (point blank) a
"propagandist" earlier in this discussion, I kinda doubt that either one
of them possessed the following mindset when they were uttering that word:
**You, DVP, are a propagandist for the Lone Assassin scenario....but you
are a totally honest propagandist.**
LOL.
"Propagandist" is just another word for "Liar" when it comes to a
conspiracy theorist's dictionary. I know it, and so does everybody else
who frequents any of the Internet JFK forums.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 18, 2016, 9:32:55 PM7/18/16
to
On 7/17/2016 9:18 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>
>> You are...a propagandist.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> That's the second time in this exact same thread that a CTer has called me
>> a "propagandist"....
>>
>> "...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist." -- R.
>> Cinque; 7/12/16
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/rb8vcWu0WMA/oI-ezllgAAAJ
>>
>> Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams?
>
> It seems to me that .John made an appeal a while back for people to
> start being more civil with one another. When that didn`t happen he seemed
> to give up and things got a lot more lax.
>
In the Stone Age? You set the tone and cause the problems.
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>
>> You are...a propagandist.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> That's the second time in this exact same thread that a CTer has called me
>> a "propagandist"....
>>
>> "...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist." -- R.
>> Cinque; 7/12/16
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/rb8vcWu0WMA/oI-ezllgAAAJ
>>
>> Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams?
>
> It seems to me that .John made an appeal a while back for people to
> start being more civil with one another. When that didn`t happen he seemed
> to give up and things got a lot more lax.
>
> I personally don`t mind a little edge.
>
>> I didn't think such
>> a direct between-the-eyes insult was permitted here at aaj. It seems as
>> though that term comes mighty close to coming out and calling someone an
>> outright "liar".
>
> It`s not really even an insult, in fact it applies to just about
> everyone posting here...
>
> "a person who promotes or publicizes a particular organization or cause."
>
advocate a cause.
David Von Pein
Jul 18, 2016, 9:35:02 PM7/18/16
to
BTW / FWIW....
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about "Propaganda":
“Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting
or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often
associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering
the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or
political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of
belief patterns.
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to
influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts
selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular
synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a
rational response to the information presented.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about "Propaganda":
“Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting
or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often
associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering
the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or
political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of
belief patterns.
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to
influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts
selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular
synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a
rational response to the information presented.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Anthony Marsh
Jul 19, 2016, 9:38:29 PM7/19/16
to
Bud
Jul 20, 2016, 12:36:46 AM7/20/16
to
0 new messages