Yawn, the old "he has no evidence" mantra, I'm the only person supplying the connected mountain of evidence and you desperately claim it's ALL flawed in some way or another, for example;
The money order in Oswald's handwriting for the exact amount of the cost of the rifle with postage is somehow not connected?
The money order payed to Kleins Sporting Goods is somehow not connected?
The date of the stamped money order and dated the exact same day as the envelope was posted is somehow not connected?
The coupon and the accompanying envelope(CE773) is somehow not connected?
The coupon with two matching block letters with Oswald's PO Box is somehow not connected?
The drama queen strikes again. I don't think there is anybody who has even claimed that there is no connection between the money order and the order form.
The problem is that they don't "prove" what you claim they prove. Even if Oswald did write the documents (and handwriting experts don't all agree on that), it could easily be that he was being manipulated into writing those documents. I could explain, but I won't bother, as there is no point in trying to explain something so basic to a fanatical zealot like you.
Kleins records(Waldman7) of when and where the rifle was sent with Oswald's PO box is somehow not connected?
This is where it gets dodgy. For evidence to be relied upon, it's needs to be authenticated. Waldman 7 never was. It was never established who wrote the serial and control numbers on that internal Kleins' document and when. All we know is that Waldman, a Kleins' VP who had nothing to do with the gun department, explained what the markings on the document mean. That's not authentication.
For some inexplicable reason, Waldman 7, an internal document, was only available as a photocopy taken from a microfilm which the FBI confiscated on 11/23/63. Nobody knows what happened to the original and/or the microfilm and if the one they showed Waldman during his testimony, several months later was in fact the same one. The evidentiary value of Waldman 7 is highly questionable.
And on and on it goes, every piece of evidence is examined without context and each time we receive an absurd biased conclusion.
Utter BS. When you say evidence is examined without context, you actually mean that evidence is "examined" based upon a pre-determined conclusion of guilt. And that's when you always get an absurd biased conclusion. What you constantly fail to understand is that pieces of evidence need to be authenticated and not just taken at face value.
Now I fully expect as usual, Iacoletti will separate each piece of evidence with his ever so boring "LOL"s and he will simply ignore all the obvious connections but as Weidman says "connect the dots", and in this case all the dots lead straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Actually, not really. Not the dots, but the leaps of faith and the assumptions required to "connect" the dots lead to LHO. The pieces of evidence themselves don't get even close.
