Part 1390 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of July 1—31, 2025. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
LAWRENCE SCHNAPF SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, that KRLD/George Phenix video of Lee Oswald getting shot has most definitely been seen before. It was shown in super slow motion on CBS-TV on the day it happened (11/24/63), and narrated by Dan Rather. See the cued-up video below....
David Von Pein
July 1, 2025
================================
PAUL BACON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There was, of course, no "hole" in the windshield at all. That's yet another JFKA myth that refuses to die.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Was There A Hole In The Windshield?
David Von Pein
July 17, 2025
================================
W. NIEDERHUT SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, the "witness evidence" has not established that Oswald was not on the sixth floor of the Depository when the President was shot and killed. The overall weight of all of the evidence, in fact, pretty much establishes (beyond all reasonable doubt) that Mr. Oswald was most definitely on the TSBD's 6th floor, in the Sniper's Nest, firing a rifle at JFK at 12:30 PM on Nov. 22.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald Was In The Sniper's Nest
---------------------------
Some related "Prints On Boxes" comments from an August 2015 discussion:
DVP SAID:
"I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder.
Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day.
And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt.
Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO.
But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing.
It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below)....
ROB CAPRIO SAID --- "So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there."
DVP THEN SAID --- "The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest. It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there". The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd." "
A related thought....
"The boxes in the Sniper's Nest (with multiple fresh LHO prints on them) are only insignificant to CTers who want to ignore all the other stuff (bullets, guns, shells, lack of an alibi, etc.) that elevates those prints (on boxes DEEP within the bowels of the Sniper's Nest) to higher levels of corroborative significance." -- DVP; November 2006
David Von Pein
July 19, 2025
================================
MITCH TODD SAID:
So, over at the Ed Forum, they are puzzled over a mystery film of the assassination that Howard Donahue said he found in a "German archive".
There seems to be much puzzlement and skepticism about this. However, if you dig a little further, it's not hard to figure out.
Donahue's daughter, Colleen, described the film to the Baltimore Sun as "a TV tape in a German archive that showed the assassination from a different angle as well as a Secret Service agent standing up in a car."
Stu Wexler was able to talk to Colleen, and he said that she told him that her father saw "a Zapruder like film from the other side of the street at a German archive."
So we have a film of the assassination that is 1) taken from the South of Elm St, and 2.) it shows a Secret Service agent standing up in a car.
The description given matches the Bond film pretty well. I would be very surprised if Donahue's mystery film didn't turn out to be a copy of the Bond film.
ROYELL STORING SAID:
If you are referring to Wilma Bond, she took SLIDES, (35mm Camera), on 11/22/63. As Donahue's daughter described, "A TV TAPE..." or a "Zapruder like FILM...", does not therefore match-up with the Wilma Bond SLIDES.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Royell is correct. Wilma Bond didn't take a "film" during the assassination in Dealey Plaza. She took these color slides (still photographs). Plus, she took no photos at all during the time when the assassination was actually taking place.
I'm thinking that this discussion at The Education Forum about a "Zapruder-like film taken from the other side of the street" is very likely referring to either the Charles Bronson film or the Orville Nix film.
Also See:
David Von Pein
July 22, 2025
================================
ROGER ODISIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sandra Styles was, of course, with Victoria Adams when they went down the back stairs of the Book Depository shortly after the assassination on 11/22/63. Styles was not called to testify in front of the Warren Commission, but she did talk at some length with assassination researcher Sean Murphy in 2008. Here's what she told Murphy at that time:
[Quoting Sandra Styles:]
“I watched the motorcade from a south-facing window on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. With me was one of my Scott Foresman colleagues, Victoria Adams (who sadly passed away last year). When the shooting took place, we were not even aware at first that it was a shooting. It sounded like fireworks. President Kennedy was obscured from our view at the critical moments by tree foliage. All I could make out in those moments was the pink of Mrs. Kennedy's suit.
Contrary to what Vickie [Adams] told the Warren Commission, she and I did NOT go to the rear stairs within a minute or so of the shooting. First, we lingered by the window for quite some time, trying to determine what was going on outside. Things were very confused. Next, we made an attempt to take the front-of-building elevator downstairs. For some reason, however, this elevator—which, unlike the rear elevator, went only as high as the fourth floor—did not come when we called it. It was only after trying to call the elevator that we thought of going towards the rear stairs. And even then we did not proceed very quickly — we were wearing high-heel shoes!
While we were still in the office area, our view of the rear stairs was blocked by partitions. Anyone could have come down those stairs without us knowing about it. All this time we had absolutely no idea that shots might have come from the Depository building. As a result, I was paying very little attention to what was going on inside the building in those first few minutes after the assassination.
If the Warren Report estimated that Vickie and I reached the first floor via the rear stairs some 4 or 5 minutes after the shooting, then I'd have to say that sounds a little conservative. If anything, it was probably longer. I have no clear recollection of seeing Bill Shelley or Billy Lovelady (both of whom I had a passing acquaintance with) near the rear of the building when we reached the first floor. I have a vague recollection of seeing them at some point around the front entrance. But it's perfectly possible we did see them where Vickie said we did—near the freight elevator. I really wasn't paying much attention to people IN the building. I thought all the action was outside.
It always puzzled me how Vickie seemed to exaggerate the speed with which we went to the rear stairway. Although I was fond of her, I guess she was what you might call a 'person of drama'. I found the version of events she told people somewhat sensationalistic and at odds with my own memory of those minutes. I simply stated what I recalled, but I didn't contradict her because I felt I couldn't say what she saw or didn't see; just because I didn't recall it the same way did not mean she was in error necessarily. I am not that noble a person that I would not have contradicted her to the interviewers had it been necessary.
Why was Vickie the only one called to testify before the Warren Commission? I don't know. My recollection has always been that I WAS interrogated by a representative from the Warren Commission very briefly in our office, but there was no follow-up, whereas she was questioned more than once. I have wondered whether it might have been that her testimony required more investigation and mine was more plausible or I was less positive in my recollections than she.
Vickie was a very friendly and gregarious person, while I am more reserved and less outgoing. She may have exaggerated some points, while I was cautious about what I said, not wanting to mislead. In some instances, her version might be more accurate.”
-- Sandra Styles; July 2008
Source Link: Click Here.
ROGER ODISIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I merely offered up some information regarding Miss Styles that I thought would be useful in this particular thread (which is info that I thought some people here might have been unaware of). And unless everyone who posts here has all of the information (and interview transcripts), then it becomes very difficult to not fall into the "cherrypicked" category. Almost everybody picks cherries at some point in time when it comes to the JFK case, of course. It's too bad, but certainly true most of the time. So if I cherrypicked re: Styles, I apologize.
And I agree with you, Roger, that it's not clear just how credible (i.e., accurate) either one of those "On The Stairs" witnesses (both Adams and Styles) has been over the years. It's impossible for any of us to know for sure.
Re: Dorothy Garner....
I've dealt with Garner in what I would consider a very reasonable and sensible and logical fashion in past discussions, such as this post at another forum in 2014:
ROGER ODISIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Any idea, then, on how the "Real Assassin" was able to make his getaway down those same old wooden stairs without Dorothy Garner seeing or hearing him (or them)?
Or do you think the real killer(s) risked immediate capture and decided to stay up on the sixth floor for several minutes after doing the dirty deed?
ROGER ODISIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There's not a speck of evidence to support anything Roger Odisio just said in his last post linked above.
So, you [Roger O.] think a group of plotters planned the assassination, and that "Oswald had already been picked as the patsy to blame", and yet you're "not sure any of the shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD". Right?
Therefore, you think the real assassins might not have even fired a single shot from the window where those same plotters were attempting to frame the patsy (via evidence you obviously think was planted there)? Right?
And .... the unknown "they" just didn't give a damn that all the bullets plucked from Kennedy's body would fail to match the Carcano rifle that will soon be recovered from the Depository's 6th floor?
And .... the real assassins decided to ruin their "Oswald As The Lone Patsy" scheme by firing bullets at the President from both the front and the rear?
That's insane. A kindergarten drop-out would have come up with a better plan.
Reality Check....
David Von Pein
July 25, 2025
