This is very confusing. Dan and Matt and others have argued the opposite of what you are arguing:

1) they've argued that there is no difference between Aiki and Aikido. Thus Dan calls it Aiki Do. Thus they claim that Aikido is just another name for the Aiki taken from Takeda.

3) These folks have argue that there is no difference between O'Sensei's teaching before the war and after the war. Notice the comments earlier by Chris about Saito Sensei and the book Budo.

It is very unusual to ban photos and videos from seminars. Without these all we can go by are the words that Dan and others have written. If we weren't supposed to debate their ideas why did they post them in a discussion forum? I have tried very hard to follow the arguments they are making. I'm good at doing that, by the way, I teach people how to do this at the highest levels. My initial posts asking for clarification were met with indignation and demands that I read all the old posts. I did. They are confusing and hard to read. I said so. I was asked to post specific question (it wasn't my idea) and I did so. The questions were not answered. They were reasonable questions. Then the insults started.

Now you claim I'm following the doctrine of my organization blindly. Others have argue that I fail to understand the teachings of Saotome Sensei. How can both be true? For the record, I don't follow anything blindly. That's why I'm asking such hard questions here. For Dan to be right, O'Sensei had to be senile, or else he had to be mistranslated AND his direct students had to be lying about what he taught them, Etc. That'a a hard pill to swallow without something more than what has been presented as evidence.