Of course he is.Iacoletti's always right.Just like Karen Westbrook Scranton.
Of course he is.Iacoletti's always right.Just like Karen Westbrook Scranton. Fifty-four years after-the-fact, and from behind.-- MWT
Edited and bumped for Iacoletti.
...and you're identifying people fifty-six years after-the-fact, and from behind. The difference is, she was actually there.Now please stop hijacking every thread for your pet obsession.
Thanks.JohnM
How exactly would the microfilm be in Klein's possession to turn over to the FBI if it were not "authentic"? Who ever said that the microfilm Klein's handed to the FBI was not authentic?Are you suggesting fantasy conspirators somehow gained access to Klein's records and inserted the microfilm then asked Klein's to turn them over? No, that's just you making up another strawman argument.
who is left alive to verify that the microfilm actually came from KleinsIndeed.... so whatever was on that microfilm, they used Waldmann to "authenticate" it and it's contentIn other words, whatever they showed Waldmann, it was merely his opinion that the copies of the documents were authentic, when the man had not been involved in the transaction and/or making of the microfilm. That's some authentication......