JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on June 27, 2019, 06:12:54 AM
-
While trying to chip away at the powerful evidence of the Kleins rifle order, Iacoletti's latest claim is that CE773(cadigan ex3A) has nothing to connect the coupon and envelope, is he right?
John Iacoletti
There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.
JohnM
It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins microfilm record keeping that the details on both coupon and envelope are inextricably linked.
1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on the Dept 358 ad.
7. William J. Waldman, the Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. testifies that CE 773 came directly from Kleins' records
Btw let's be honest, is there any reasonable explanation of how the coupon and the envelope could be mistakenly photographed together, if there is I'd like to hear it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrQZLW3D/cadigan-ex3a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/76Q1PPyj/Riflead1.jpg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tFJ7SKZ/waldman-6.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j2O-kIQp5Aw/Uppyyq6H3KI/AAAAAAAAxSI/G97X3C5lxOI/s690/Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8kq64W79/waldman-8.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, I'm going to mark what has FBI Exhibit D-77 on it as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 6, being the container with your initials and the microfilm record itself, which you placed on the microfilm reader and about which you have just testified upstairs.
Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of Dallas, Tex. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine.
Mr. BELIN. This Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 is a print from the micro- film negative which we just viewed upstair; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. And Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 8 is also a print from the microfilm record we viewed upstairs showing the actual coupon and the envelope in which the coupon was enclosed; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
The handwriting analysis.
Mr. CADIGAN. The enlarged photograph, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, contains both handwriting and hand printing which was compared with the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. I compared both the handwriting and the hand printing to determine whether or not the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics was present in both the questioned and the known documents. I found many characteristics, some of which I would point out.
On the order blank, in the "A. Hidell" and in the wording "Dallas Texas" which constitutes a part of the return address, the letter "A" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 is made in the same manner as the capital letter "A" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10. The letter is formed with a short straight stroke beginning about halfway up the left side. The top of it is peaked or pointed. The right side is straight, and is shorter than the initial stroke. The capital letter "D" in Dallas is characterized by a staff or downstroke slanting at about a 30° angle. The lower loop in some instances is closed. In the word "Dallas" the loop is closed, and the body of the letter ends in a rounded loop formation. The same characteristic I found in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4, 5, and 6 as well as other exhibits. The word "Texas" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A is characterized with the letter "x" made in an unusual manner in that the writer, after completing the body of the letter, makes an abrupt change of motion to the following letter "a." This same characteristic I observed in the known standard on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 6, 9, and 4.
In the address portion of the envelope, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, appears the word "Dept." I noticed here, again, the same formation of the capital "D." In addition, the entire word "Dept" appears in the known standards on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The characteristics I would point out here are in the letter "p" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, where the letter is made with a relatively long narrow staff, and the body of the letter is a rounded shape which projects above the staff. The letter "t" ends abruptly in a downstroke. In the hand-printing appearing in the exhibit marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3--A, the wording "Dallas, Texas" contains a number of the same characteristics as Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, where the same wording appears, and on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8. The writer uses a script-type "D," and prints the other letters in the word "Dallas." The "A " again is made in a similar way to the "A" in "A. Hidell," with a beginning of the downstroke approximately three-quarters of the way up the left side of the stroke. The letter is relatively narrow, and the right-hand side of the letter is straight. In the double "L" combinations there is a curve in the lower portion of the letter. The "S" has a flat top, slanting at approximately a 30-degree angle. In the word "Texas" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A the writer has used a small "e" following the letter "T." The same characteristics will be noted on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 7, and 8.
Additionally, I noted that in addition to the shape of the letters themselves, the relative heights of the letters, the spacing between the letters, the slant of the letters in both the know and questioned documents are the same.
On Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, in the portion for address, appears the notation "P.O. Box 2915," and this same wording appears on Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, and on No. 7 and No. 8 except for the "P.O." portion. Here, again, I observed the same formation of the individual letters; the spacing, the style, the slant of the writings in both questioned and known were observed to be the same.
The tail of the "5" is made with a relatively long stroke and the same characteristic appears in the known standards. In the hand printed name "A. Hidell," on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, another characteristic I noted was the very small-sized "i" in the name "Hidell." The writer makes this letter very short in contrast to the other letters in the name. This same characteristic I observed on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, the passport application. With reference to the "1" dot on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 in the name "Hidell," in the return portion, the dot is relatively high and between the body of the letter and the following letter "d." In the portion of the word "Chicago"---of the name "Chicago"--in the address portion on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, the "i" dot is between the "o" and the "g" in "Chicago" and is well above the line of writing. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 4 I observed the same displacement of the "i" dot. In some instances, it is slightly to the right of the body of the letter, as in the word "citizenship" in the sixth line from the bottom, whereas in the word "direct" in the ninth line from the bottom the "i" dot is displaced one and a half letters to the right.
Based upon the combination of these individual characteristics which I have pointed out, as well as others, I reached the opinion that the handwriting and handprinting on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A were written by Lee Harvey Oswald, the writer of the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10.
And again the handwriting on CE 773 is analysed by another handwriting expert.
Mr. KLEIN - Using the blowups, would you explain why the panel reached its conclusion?
Mr. MCNALLY - We examined and compared the writings on the microfilm reproduction with the original postal money order issued as payable to Klein's Sporting Goods. The same process, of course, was involved, an examination and comparison of the general writing characteristics which appear on this microfilmed reproduction, versus the writing which appears on the U.S. postal money order. The writing pattern on both of these documents is the same, the same degree of skill, the same slant pattern. The writing has a continuity and a cohesion, a continuous flow in the formation of "Hidell", "Dallas, Texas," "Klein's," "Chicago, Illinois." It flows right along in the same manner, as we have in the writing flow on the postal money order. The individual letter designs that occur in the writing of the name and the address and the names and addresses on the microfilm reproduction and the writing of the various letters on the postal money order correspond. In both instances on the microfilmed reproduction here we have a parallel, the writing of "Hidell" here in the top of the microfilm and the "A. Hidell," which occurs over here on the postal money order. The writing construction in both instances is the same, just a slight variation in the "H" in "Hidell" in the microfilm reproduction, but the rest of the writing conforms to the writing "A. Hidell" on the U.S. postal money order. In the writing of "Dallas, Texas," this particular writing pattern here in the upper left-hand corner agreed with the writing of "Dallas, Texas," over here on the U.S. postal money order. The variation occurring here is that in the return address on the postal money order a small "t" has been used versus a capital "T" utilized down here. In this "Texas" here in the writing of the "x-a-s" right in this portion here just following the "x" there is a slight hitch almost like a small undotted "i". That same information occurs over here just before the "a" here a little hitch in the writing pattern. The overall writing on both the microfilm and on the postal money order correspond to the extent that we came to the conclusion both were written by the same individual, again with that caveat that this is a reproduction. As a matter of fact, this if from a microfilm, and it has been blown up from the microfilm itself so that it lacks clarity and detail. But the impression gotten from examining this particular document and comparing it with the writing of the original document, the postal money order, is that the writing flows. The line quality of that on this document and that on the postal money order corresponds; the letter designs correspond. There is no significant difference between the writing on the microfilm and the writing we have in the money order or the writing we have here, for instance, on the employment application. Further, the hand printing on this particular form here, which was laid over the envelope when it was recorded, this hand printing, "A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," corresponds to that which we have in this employment application and also a letter which backed up this employment application, specifically some writing in the lower left-hand corner of that letter. We did conclude again (with that slight caveat) that the writing of the microfilm in both the script writing here and the hand print here were written by the same individual who wrote out the postal money order and the employment application.
Mr. KLEIN - Was there any evidence to indicate that either of these documents were forged or altered?
Mr. MCNALLY - From the examinations that could be made, absolutely no evidence.
JohnM
-
There is no good explanation. As always, the tactic is to suggest there is false doubt without addressing the consequences of that bogus claim being true. It's a defense attorney tactic. Claim there is doubt about everything and hope you can fool at least one juror to agree. Where there is smoke, there must be fire tactic. Of course the defense attorney is the one blowing all the smoke. Suggest there is doubt about the envelope, doubt about whether Oswald received the rifle, and even if he did it doesn't prove he pulled the trigger. On and on down the rabbit hole.
-
1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
The strategy here is to focus on the envelope because there is not enough writing on the coupon even for unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis". And both are copies, which even the people that "Mytton" appeals to in his appeal to authority admit is unreliable.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on the Dept 358 ad.
The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered or how much it cost.
7. William J. Waldman, the Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. testifies that CE 773 came directly from Kleins' records
Let's see the microfilm. Waldman was a VP who had nothing to do with processing the alleged order. He didn't even supervise the person who did. Why did they choose to interview him?
Btw let's be honest, is there any reasonable explanation of how the coupon and the envelope could be mistakenly photographed together, if there is I'd like to hear it?
Who said it was a mistake?
-
The strategy here is to focus on the envelope because there is not enough writing on the coupon even for unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis". And both are copies, which even the people that "Mytton" appeals to in his appeal to authority admit is unreliable.
The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered or how much it cost.
Let's see the microfilm. Waldman was a VP who had nothing to do with processing the alleged order. He didn't even supervise the person who did. Why did they choose to interview him?
Who said it was a mistake?
The strategy here is to focus on the envelope because there is not enough writing on the coupon even for unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis".
Seriously, your desperate strategy was separating 1 piece of evidence into a more compliant 2, naughty naughty.
And both are copies, which even the people that "Mytton" appeals to in his appeal to authority admit is unreliable.
They looked at microfilm which while not an original is still a photo.
The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered or how much it cost.
No kidding sherlock and it probably never will, how is stating the bleeding obvious evidence?
Let's see the microfilm.
Waldman testified that he saw and examined his company's records. End of story!
Waldman was a VP who had nothing to do with processing the alleged order. He didn't even supervise the person who did. Why did they choose to interview him?
What has the grunt who processed the order have to do with anything?, Waldman can confirm that the grunt did his job properly because the order ended up on the Kleins microfilm.
JohnM
-
Seriously, your desperate strategy was separating 1 piece of evidence into a more compliant 2, naughty naughty.
If you're trying to find evidence that Oswald ordered a specific rifle, then an envelope and a money order that may or may not have accompanied the order don't help you.
They looked at microfilm which while not an original is still a photo.
A microfilm image is most certainly a photo.
No kidding sherlock and it probably never will, how is stating the bleeding obvious evidence?
Because you think that handwriting "analysis" of letters on an envelope tells you anything about who ordered a particular rifle.
Waldman testified that he saw and examined his company's records. End of story!
The original records? I don't think so. You mean the microfilm that the FBI confiscated on 11/22 and is now "missing"?
What has the grunt who processed the order have to do with anything?,
Seriously? He would know what he did better than a VP just looking at microfilm.
Waldman can confirm that the grunt did his job properly because the order ended up on the Kleins microfilm.
LOL. How does that show that anybody did anything "properly"? It certainly doesn't show that a particular rifle was ever mailed to a particular address.
-
I see 4 "yes" votes but no one has yet explained why the single microfilm Kleins record should have the coupon and envelope separated?
JohnM
-
If you're trying to find evidence that Oswald ordered a specific rifle, then an envelope and a money order that may or may not have accompanied the order don't help you.
A microfilm image is most certainly a photo.
Because you think that handwriting "analysis" of letters on an envelope tells you anything about who ordered a particular rifle.
The original records? I don't think so. You mean the microfilm that the FBI confiscated on 11/22 and is now "missing"?
Seriously? He would know what he did better than a VP just looking at microfilm.
LOL. How does that show that anybody did anything "properly"? It certainly doesn't show that a particular rifle was ever mailed to a particular address.
If you're trying to find evidence that Oswald ordered a specific rifle, then an envelope and a money order that may or may not have accompanied the order don't help you.
Of course it does, it's all part of the paper trail.
A microfilm image is most certainly a photo.
Thanks Einstein.
Because you think that handwriting "analysis" of letters on an envelope tells you anything about who ordered a particular rifle.
Of course, who wrote what is important.
Seriously? He would know what he did better than a VP just looking at microfilm.
Why would the procedure of how someone scans orders be in anyway relevant, you're losing the plot mate.
LOL. How does that show that anybody did anything "properly"?
The microfilm record shows that the grunt did their job properly, they recorded the rifle order along with the dispatch information.
It certainly doesn't show that a particular rifle was ever mailed to a particular address.
It's all part of the paper trail.
To be honest Iacoletti, your arguments are weak and reek of desperation.
JohnM
-
Of course it does, it's all part of the paper trail.
No, it's a picture of a coupon and an envelope sitting together.
Thanks Einstein.
I meant to say that a microfilm image is still a copy and therefore unreliable, even by pseudoscientific handwriting "analysis" standards. So why are you trying to make a distinction?
Of course, who wrote what is important.
Not when you're trying to prove who ordered a specific object. Who addressed an envelope is irrelevant.
Why would the procedure of how someone scans orders be in anyway relevant, you're losing the plot mate.
Well, for one thing, how would Waldman know how and when this alleged microfilm picture was taken and how it was composed?
The microfilm record shows that the grunt did their job properly, they recorded the rifle order along with the dispatch information.
No it doesn't. It shows that there is a photo of a coupon and an envelope on a print made from a microfilm copy of a physical coupon that no longer exists.
To be honest Iacoletti, your arguments are weak and reek of desperation.
That would be you.
This isn't a "paper trail" at all. It's a biased and subjective opinion about an image of unknown origin.
-
Well, for one thing, how would Waldman know how and when this alleged microfilm picture was taken and how it was composed?
Where does this go?, how do you expect a grunt to remember a specific order more than six months later and why do you reckon a question about when the grunt thought he did the work to be of any value whatsoever?
JohnM
-
Where does this go?, how do you expect a grunt to remember a specific order more than six months later and why do you reckon a question about when the grunt thought he did the work to be of any value whatsoever?
Perhaps said grunt could verify that he actually mailed a package to a Dallas PO box via the US postal service since there exists no actual evidence of such.
But a better question might be, why do you reckon a VP reading an FBI provided piece of microfilm and saying what he thinks it might mean is of any value whatsoever?
-
Perhaps said grunt could verify that he actually mailed a package to a Dallas PO box via the US postal service since there exists no actual evidence of such.
But a better question might be, why do you reckon a VP reading an FBI provided piece of microfilm and saying what he thinks it might mean is of any value whatsoever?
Perhaps said grunt could verify that he actually mailed a package to a Dallas PO box via the US postal service...
Why would said grunt have any need to remember in November one specific order that he posted in March who are you trying to convince with this obvious cheap tactic?
But a better question might be, why do you reckon a VP reading an FBI provided piece of microfilm and saying what he thinks it might mean is of any value whatsoever?
Again nice try, but Waldman sighted the rifle order on the the Kleins microfilm records on the evening of the 22nd which clearly had to be before he gave the film to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Was this on Friday evening, November 22?
Mr. WALDMAN. On Friday evening, November 22.
Mr. BELIN. Did the FBI indicate at what time, what period that they felt you might have received this rifle originally?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
Mr. BELIN. Are these microfilm records part of your customary recording of transactions of your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; they are.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8kq64W79/waldman-8.jpg)
Even though after the information about the rifle order was found on the 22nd, the FBI didn't take the microfilm till the 23rd, it's possible that Kleins was taking a copy of the microfilm for themselves for their own bookkeeping and just in case they needed to look up another rifle or baseball bat or hockey stick or weights or whatever that was linked to another murder or simply just to look up a refund? Without their records they're cactus!
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation.
Mr. BELIN. You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And you can make copies of the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
JohnM
-
Is John Iacoletti right to separate the coupon from the envelope in CE773?
What does it matter anyway?
A magician could not have made all that 'evidence' appear any faster than the FBI did in one evening.
It was almost like 21st century computer speed in 1963 :-\
-
What does it matter anyway?
A magician could not have made all that 'evidence' appear any faster than the FBI did in one evening.
It was almost like 21st century computer speed in 1963 :-\
You're joking, right? The President was just killed so they immediately traced the rifle which led to Kleins and the Kliens microfilm led to Hidell's PO Box which was owned by Oswald, Oswald worked in the Depository building and Oswald was also seen killing Tippit, see how this works, detective work is one logical deduction one after another.
All the evidence leads to Oswald.
JohnM
-
You're joking, right? The President was just killed so they immediately traced the rifle which led to Kleins and the Kliens microfilm led to Hidell's PO Box which was owned by Oswald, Oswald worked in the Depository building and Oswald was also seen killing Tippit, see how this works, detective work is one logical deduction one after another.
All the evidence leads to Oswald.
JohnM
Oswald started the evidence collection in Irving on New Assassination Eve and the rest stuck to him like post-it notes on practically every step he took thereafter.
-
You're joking, right?
Serial numbers can be scratched off of weapons ...odd that it wasn't if it was destined to be a murder weapon -starting with the alleged Walker shooting-- Same with pistols. Oh, that's against the law? Give me a break and don't mention that.
Either Oswald left a hundred and umpteen points of 'evidence' behind to play 'catch me if you can' or he got set up.
Well, he got set up.
-
Mr. Freeman: Lee was set up
Mr. Oswald: Okay, sure ::)
-
Mr. Freeman: Lee was set up
Mr. Oswald: Okay, sure
As usual...a non-contribution.
-
imo, the conspirators would make use of their expert handwriting forger to write on both envelope and coupon at same table in Fritz office, where the paper bag was placed and Oswald's palm print placed on it while Oswald was in handcuffs and they could force him to touch the paper with one his hands. :)
-
As usual...a non-contribution.
As usual... removing part of my post
Sane people everywhere roll their eyes at you lot
-
As usual... removing part of my post
As usual...whining about trivial stuff.
Sane people everywhere roll their eyes at you lot
SANE people? Then why would you?
-
You're joking, right? The President was just killed so they immediately traced the rifle which led to Kleins and the Kliens microfilm led to Hidell's PO Box which was owned by Oswald, Oswald worked in the Depository building and Oswald was also seen killing Tippit, see how this works, detective work is one logical deduction one after another.
All the evidence leads to Oswald.
JohnM
These are just the same lazy contrarians attempting to frame the evidence in the context of an impossible standard of proof to create false doubt. If all of this evidence doesn't satisfy them that Oswald ordered the rifle, then what could? Nothing. It's difficult to conceive how there could be any more evidence of the matter than exists under the circumstances. It's a minor miracle that so much evidence does exist. This is just more pointless defense attorney nonsense to defend a guilty client. Suggest false doubt about everything. Make no attempt whatsoever to explain the consequences of this false doubt having any validity. As you asked to begin with, how and why would the coupon and the envelope be photographed together if they were not related?
-
You're joking, right? The President was just killed so they immediately traced the rifle which led to Kleins and the Kliens microfilm led to Hidell's PO Box which was owned by Oswald, Oswald worked in the Depository building and Oswald was also seen killing Tippit, see how this works, detective work is one logical deduction one after another.
All the evidence leads to Oswald.
JohnM
You're responding to classic conspiracy thinking: evidence that points to Oswald's guilt must actually be evidence of his innocence. Why? Because it was simply too easy to gather.
The more evidence of his guilt is more evidence of his innocence.
The reason Oswald left the building so quickly, the reason he was on the run, the reason he showed no interest in the event, the reason he shot Tippit, the reason he fled into the theater was because he shot JFK. All of those obvious actions indicate flight.
No, to the conspiracy believers it indicates conspiracy to frame an innocent man.
Up is down and down is up.
-
If all of this evidence doesn't satisfy them that Oswald ordered the rifle ....
Actually...Hidell 'ordered' the rifle. Read the order again.
-
Actually...Hidell 'ordered' the rifle. Read the order again.
Calling Roger Collins to explain the use of an alias. LOL. Yes, Oswald obviously would not order a rifle that he intended to use to commit murder under an alias. Whew. Good thing for him that he didn't have a fake ID with that name in his possession!
-
These are just the same lazy contrarians attempting to frame the evidence in the context of an impossible standard of proof to create false doubt.
What's lazy is arguing that someone else's standard of proof is impossible instead of admitting that you have a weak case.
If all of this evidence doesn't satisfy them that Oswald ordered the rifle, then what could?
The only evidence that Oswald personally ordered a (similar) rifle from Klein's is unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon.
-
Calling Roger Collins to explain the use of an alias. LOL. Yes, Oswald obviously would not order a rifle that he intended to use to commit murder under an alias. Whew. Good thing for him that he didn't have a fake ID with that name in his possession!
And your evidence that Oswald ever had a fake ID with that name in his possession?
Oh, right, "cop said so". After Oswald was dead.
-
Again nice try, but Waldman sighted the rifle order on the the Kleins microfilm records on the evening of the 22nd which clearly had to be before he gave the film to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Was this on Friday evening, November 22?
Mr. WALDMAN. On Friday evening, November 22.
Mr. BELIN. Did the FBI indicate at what time, what period that they felt you might have received this rifle originally?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
Mr. BELIN. Are these microfilm records part of your customary recording of transactions of your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; they are.
Nice try, indeed. Where does Waldman say that he personally "sighted the rifle order on the the Kleins microfilm records on the evening of the 22nd"? Also, how did the FBI have "a record of when it had been shipped" on the evening of the 22nd? What record?
-
And your evidence that Oswald ever had a fake ID with that name in his possession?
Oh, right, "cop said so". After Oswald was dead.
Oswald: I'm innocent.
CT jury: Okay, you can go.
Oswald: [SMIRK]
-------------------------------------------
John Iacoletti dies and arrives at The Gates of Hell.
John: WOW, I did not see this coming...
Lucifer arrives, with Oswald in tow.
John: Lee, what are you doing here?
Oswald: I shot Kennedy.
John: You're lying.
Oswald: ::)
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-bozo.jpg)
-
Of course it does, it's all part of the paper trail.
So is the microfilm. Where is it?
-
So is the microfilm. Where is it?
The microfilm was found in Kleins records by Waldman the Vice President of Kleins, Waldman initialed the microfilm and later verified that it was his initials, was Waldan also part of your conspiracy?
Btw where is the evidence that the microfilm is missing?
JohnM
-
What's lazy is arguing that someone else's standard of proof is impossible instead of admitting that you have a weak case.
The only evidence that Oswald personally ordered a (similar) rifle from Klein's is unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon.
Iacoletti,
Handwriting analysis of only two block letters, or handwriting analysis which determined, based on two distinctive block letters, that the writing was Oswald's?
-- MWT ;)
-
"Unscientific"! LOL. Let's see: there are prints, photos, an order form in Oswald's handwriting, serial number match, Oswald's PO Box, an alias linked to Oswald via a fake ID in his possession at the time of arrest, the rifle is found at his place of work, there is no accounting for any other rifle in Oswald's possession. Whew. It's hard to imagine what more evidence there could be. I wonder what constitutes "scientific" evidence if all of this does not do the trick. How much such evidence is there to link John Wilkes Booth the gun he used to kill Lincoln? I guess there is doubt of his guilt as well. I'm sure there are witnesses who got his age, height, or color of his clothes wrong. So there must (false) doubt.
-
The microfilm was found in Kleins records by Waldman the Vice President of Kleins, Waldman initialed the microfilm and later verified that it was his initials, was Waldan also part of your conspiracy?
As if usual for this case, the documentary evidence is contradictory. This document claims that Waldman kept the original film in his safe in case it was necessary for subpeona. So which is it?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page)
Btw where is the evidence that the microfilm is missing?
John Armstrong looked for it in the National Archives in the mid 90s and found the film canister there, but the microfilm itself missing.
-
As if usual for this case, the documentary evidence is contradictory. This document claims that Waldman kept the original film in his safe in case it was necessary for subpoena. So which is it?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page)
John Armstrong looked for it in the National Archives in the mid 90s and found the film canister there, but the microfilm itself missing.
As if usual for this case, the documentary evidence is contradictory. This document claims that Waldman kept the original film in his safe in case it was necessary for subpoena. So which is it?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page)
As is usual in this case, the documentary evidence has no problems. The FBI agent is writing a report of what happened on the night of the 22nd. Waldman testifies that on the 22nd they extracted the information and then picked up the microfilm the next day.
The FBI agent in his report is simply telling us what happened on the night and Waldman obviously would put the microfilm under secure lock and key, as described in the report.
And to answer your "so which is it?" question, the answer is that both are right, not everyone has to lie.
But what I don't understand is how can Kleins do business without that record, as I previously posted those rifle records and who purchased them must be legally important for someone to have access to, surely?
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0sGHzcY/waldman-microfilm-safe.jpg)
John Armstrong looked for it in the National Archives in the mid 90s and found the film canister there, but the microfilm itself missing.
OK, I see no reason to doubt Armstrong but there could be a reasonable explanation, perhaps the film was being studied elsewhere because there was a lot of interest at that time due to the JFK movie.
I'd like to see an official say he can't produce the microfilm then that would be definitive proof that someone stole the microfilm, like how Groden stole copies of Autopsy Photos, it happens.
JohnM
-
As is usual in this case, the documentary evidence has no problems. The FBI agent is writing a report of what happened on the night of the 22nd. Waldman testifies that on the 22nd they extracted the information and then picked up the microfilm the next day.
Hold the phone. Where does it say anything about the 22nd? It's dated the 23rd, the same day the film was allegedly given to SA Dolan by Waldman. According to CD 87, the FBI was at Klein's from 10 PM on the 22nd until 5:00 am on the 23rd and Waldman gave them the microfilm. So why would they say that he put it in his safe until it was necessary to subpeona?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=91&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=91&tab=page)
The question is, did Waldman even look at this film before the FBI confiscated it?
But what I don't understand is how can Kleins do business without that record, as I previously posted those rifle records and who purchased them must be legally important for someone to have access to, surely?
The FBI supposedly made a copy of the microfilm on Dec 4 so that Klein's could have their business records (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20037/105-37b.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20037/105-37b.pdf)). So what happened to the copy as well as to the original?
-
Hold the phone. Where does it say anything about the 22nd? It's dated the 23rd, the same day the film was allegedly given to SA Dolan by Waldman. According to CD 87, the FBI was at Klein's from 10 PM on the 22nd until 5:00 am on the 23rd and Waldman gave them the microfilm. So why would they say that he put it in his safe until it was necessary to subpeona?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=91&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=91&tab=page)
The question is, did Waldman even look at this film before the FBI confiscated it?
The FBI supposedly made a copy of the microfilm on Dec 4 so that Klein's could have their business records (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20037/105-37b.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20037/105-37b.pdf)). So what happened to the copy as well as to the original?
Isn't the document you originally linked to dated the 26th?
The problem as I see it is that there is no information on how long the microfilm was in the safe and at what time the FBI took the film from the safe, you're just making assumptions.
Btw wouldn't have Waldman seen the microfilm when he discovered the Hidelll order?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received
JohnM
-
Isn't the document you originally linked to dated the 26th?
No, it's dated the 23rd (dictated on the 26th).
The problem as I see it is that there is no information on how long the microfilm was in the safe and at what time the FBI took the film from the safe, you're just making assumptions.
It's just contradictory. Either they took it on the early morning of the 23rd after being there all night, or they left it with him to put in his safe until they needed it at a later date. Unless he put it in his safe at say 3 am and then they decided they needed it after all at 5 am, in which case why even mention that he put it in his safe?
Btw wouldn't have Waldman seen the microfilm when he discovered the Hidelll order?
How do we know that Waldman discovered the Hidell order?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received
Isn't he talking about the date that Klein's purchased and received the rifle from Crescent?
-
No, it's dated the 23rd (dictated on the 26th).
It's just contradictory. Either they took it on the early morning of the 23rd after being there all night, or they left it with him to put in his safe until they needed it at a later date. Unless he put it in his safe at say 3 am and then they decided they needed it after all at 5 am, in which case why even mention that he put it in his safe?
How do we know that Waldman discovered the Hidell order?
Isn't he talking about the date that Klein's purchased and received the rifle from Crescent?
No, it's dated the 23rd (dictated on the 26th).
The document is dated the 26th, the stuff happened on the 23rd.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mg5YVjwh/the-26th.jpg)
Unless he put it in his safe at say 3 am and then they decided they needed it after all at 5 am, in which case why even mention that he put it in his safe?
That's what I theorised and one agent who went home early or was just taking a whizz dictated the document on the 26th and wasn't in a position to be aware that they took the microfilm, no one has to lie, well unless the 26th dictation was by Dolan?
Isn't he talking about the date that Klein's purchased and received the rifle from Crescent?
Yeah, for some reason my Waldman quote cut short, here's the entire statement.
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
JohnM
-
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
This is really peculiar. Who is "they"? The FBI? What record would they have of when it had been shipped?
"and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records". A little Freudian slip there?
-
Guess what? When you produce the microfilm, you will then be able to say that it is in itself the evidence proving it exists. Not that complicated, a reasonable person will not roll over just because you tried to answer a question with a question.
You said there was microfilm
I said "Where is it?
Your answer --well, you did not have an answer instead you pick a game of tennis by saying "where's the evidence that it is missing?"
My answer to that question is I did not claim it exists or does not exist. I sure am not going to take your word for it, you yourself don't even know if it does or not.
BTW This is exactly why you are unable to make a point and if you ask "were they lying too?" I don't know who is lying but they sure fooled you
-
Guess what? When you produce the microfilm, you will then be able to say that it is in itself the evidence proving it exists. Not that complicated, a reasonable person will not roll over just because you tried to answer a question with a question.
You said there was microfilm
I said "Where is it?
Your answer --well, you did not have an answer instead you pick a game of tennis by saying "where's the evidence that it is missing?"
My answer to that question is I did not claim it exists or does not exist. I sure am not going to take your word for it, you yourself don't even know if it does or not.
BTW This is exactly why you are unable to make a point and if you ask "were they lying too?" I don't know who is lying but they sure fooled you
For a start the microfilm was verified by Waldman to be authentic, you lose.
Btw Einstein, even if the microfilm was examined, who is left alive to verify that the microfilm actually came from Kleins, that boat has long sailed, try something new.
JohnM
-
Where is it?
-
Where is it?
Wow you really don't get it do you!
I don't know where the microfilm is and I don't care, Waldman the Vice President of Kleins verified that the microfilm was genuine!
CASE CLOSED!
JohnM
-
Where is it?
If you're that interested do a little research and find out! You are familiar with that word I presume, r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h? Here's a clue to get you started; "Storage of the microfilm in a room with a controlled environment is extremely important."
-
"Unscientific"! LOL.
Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific. Deal with it.
Let's see: there are prints,
What prints?
photos,
Photos of what?
an order form in Oswald's handwriting,
LOL.
serial number match,
Match to what?
Oswald's PO Box,
What about it?
an alias linked to Oswald
How is this alias "linked to Oswald"?
via a fake ID in his possession at the time of arrest,
Do you have any evidence that this ID was in his possession at the time of arrest -- beyond "cop said so after he was dead"?
the rifle is found at his place of work,
Lots of people worked there.
there is no accounting for any other rifle in Oswald's possession.
There is no accounting for THAT rifle in Oswald's possession either.
Whew.
Whew indeed. Your rhetoric overfloweth.
It's hard to imagine what more evidence there could be.
Rhetoric and unsupported claims aren't evidence.
I wonder what constitutes "scientific" evidence if all of this does not do the trick.
Do you have any understanding of the scientific method? Handwriting "analysis" is not a hard science. Especially in 1964. No standards, no tests, no demonstration of accuracy, not measurable, not repeatable, not falsifiable. And even more unreliable on a tiny sample from a copy.
How much such evidence is there to link John Wilkes Booth the gun he used to kill Lincoln?
Not this false analogy again. There is much better evidence against Booth than "who may have bought the gun".
-
I don't know where the microfilm is and I don't care, Waldman the Vice President of Kleins verified that the microfilm was genuine!
How would Waldman know this?
-
When it is noted that Oswald is linked to the alias used to order the rifle via an ID found in his possession upon arrest, the dishonest contrarian suggests further proof of this is necessary by dismissing the word of those who arrested Oswald (i.e. the very people who were there). That is asking for a time machine and implying nothing can ever be proven. The direct implication is that those present lied about the ID since they confirmed it was found on Oswald. The only explanation given for them to lie is they were "cops" and "Oswald was dead." Perplexing how that raises any doubt whatsoever about the confirmation of Oswald being in possession of the fake ID. If there were any doubt whatsoever (and there is not), the same alias is also found on a PO Box form linked to Oswald. Let me guess, we need a time machine to go back and confirm the post office didn't forge that form. It's a slam dunk that the alias used to order the rifle can be linked to Oswald. There is zero doubt.
Another example. The serial number is a match - to which the dishonest contrarian asks "a match to what?" Hmm. Let's think about that one. According to Klein's, a rifle with a unique serial number was mailed to Oswald's PO Box. A rifle with that same serial number was found at the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment). Now think real hard about where the match is. When it is noted that the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, the response is that "lots of people worked there." LOL. It is mind boggling to understand how that is relevant since none of these other employees have any link whatsoever to the rifle. How many of these "other people" who worked there had this particular rifle sent to their PO Box under an alias that could be linked to them? How many left their prints on that rifle? How many were photographed holding it? How many carried a long package that morning that could never be accounted for then lied about it? It wouldn't matter if a million people worked there because there is not a single other person who worked there that has even one iota of evidence that links them to the rifle and yet that is what the contrarian suggests could be the explanation for the rifle's presence while dismissing a mountain of evidence linking the rifle to Oswald. Good grief.
-
When it is noted that Oswald is linked to the alias used to order the rifle via an ID found in his possession upon arrest, the dishonest contrarian suggests further proof of this is necessary by dismissing the word of those who arrested Oswald (i.e. the very people who were there).
Disingenuous. You discount "people who were there" all the time when it doesn't fit your narrative. Just to name a few:
Arnold Rowland
Roger Craig
Carolyn Walther
Jean Hill
Vickie Adams
Ed Hoffman
Julia Ann Mercer
Acquilla Clemons
Bernard Haire
Sylvia Odio
O.P. Wright
Seth Kantor
Butch Burroughs
W.R. (Dub) Stark
Louis Cortinas
Carolyn Arnold
The question is, was there any mention of this ID in any statement, document, or report made before the Klein's order turned up?
The only explanation given for them to lie is they were "cops" and "Oswald was dead." Perplexing how that raises any doubt whatsoever about the confirmation of Oswald being in possession of the fake ID.
There no special credibility conferred upon the word of a cop as opposed to anyone else. On the contrary, cops can and do lie to railroad suspects and to protect their own. There are hundreds of examples. Once the Klein's order turned up, they had incentive to connect Oswald to "A. Hidell". If you can find any record of this ID existing prior to then, I'd sure like to see it.
If there were any doubt whatsoever (and there is not), the same alias is also found on a PO Box form linked to Oswald.
You mean the form that was supposed to have been destroyed per postal regulations? And how does this make "Hidell" an alias for Oswald?
Let me guess, we need a time machine to go back and confirm the post office didn't forge that form. It's a slam dunk that the alias used to order the rifle can be linked to Oswald. There is zero doubt.
So your argument then is that because there is no good evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, then we should just believe that's true based on weak circumstantial evidence and conjecture instead? "Zero doubt" is just LN-speak for "in my opinion". For one thing, how do you know Hidell is an alias at all?
Another example. The serial number is a match - to which the dishonest contrarian asks "a match to what?" Hmm. Let's think about that one. According to Klein's, a rifle with a unique serial number was mailed to Oswald's PO Box.
False claim. According to a Klein's VP who had nothing to do with processing the orders, a copy of a microfilm order blank had "PP" circled, which means that the order was supposedly sent via "Parcel post", but there is no record whatsoever of any such shipment.
A rifle with that same serial number was found at the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment). Now think real hard about where the match is.
What is this, proof by sarcasm? For one thing, there is good reason to think that the serial number may not have even been unique. And it's more correct to say that the perhaps not unique serial number on a rifle allegedly found in the TSBD (but reported by three deputies to have been a 7.65 Mauser) matched the serial number handwritten in on a photo of a microfilm copy of a Klein's order blank from microfilm that is now missing.
When it is noted that the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, the response is that "lots of people worked there." LOL. It is mind boggling to understand how that is relevant since none of these other employees have any link whatsoever to the rifle.
You're the one putting "found at his place of employment" forward as a relevant piece of evidence that he shot the president. It's not.
How many of these "other people" who worked there had this particular rifle sent to their PO Box under an alias that could be linked to them?
You haven't even demonstrated that Oswald had this particular rifle sent to his PO Box under an alias that could be linked to him.
How many left their prints on that rifle?
What prints on that rifle? The ones that were useless for identification purposes? Surely not the partial palmprint that turned up a week later on an index card.
How many were photographed holding it?
You haven't demonstrated that Oswald was photographed holding it.
How many carried a long package that morning that could never be accounted for then lied about it?
You mean how many carried a package too short to have held the alleged murder weapon? What difference does it make? You don't know he lied about it. You're assuming he lied about it because it conflicts with your baseless assumption that he carried in a rifle.
It wouldn't matter if a million people worked there because there is not a single other person who worked there that has even one iota of evidence that links them to the rifle and yet that is what the contrarian suggests could be the explanation for the rifle's presence while dismissing a mountain of evidence linking the rifle to Oswald. Good grief.
Then you've just admitted that "found at his place of employment" is just redundant rhetoric for the purposes of padding actual evidence and nothing else.
If you were actually characterizing the other evidence correctly, but the rifle had been found somewhere else (like in the Trinity River for example) would you suddenly say "oh, well it wasn't found at his place of employment, so I guess that exonerates him"? Of course you wouldn't. It's only "evidence" because you have contrived it to be evidence.
-
If you're that interested do a little research and find out! You are familiar with that word I presume, r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h? Here's a clue to get you started; "Storage of the microfilm in a room with a controlled environment is extremely important."
That would be great if it was in storage because you making statements that it is in storage would be justified, but guess what?
Here's a clue. The Microfilm doesn't exist.
That tells me you spent way too much time thinking you were correct when you clearly did not research it.
I accept your apology, everyone makes mistakes and you are very consistent at making mistakes. May God Bless You
-
That would be great if it was in storage because you making statements that it is in storage would be justified, but guess what?
Here's a clue. The Microfilm doesn't exist.
That tells me you spent way too much time thinking you were correct when you clearly did not research it.
I accept your apology, everyone makes mistakes and you are very consistent at making mistakes. May God Bless You
The Microfilm doesn't exist.
Prove it!
JohnM
-
Prove it!
JohnM
I can't prove there is microfilm, I guess you can't either. So you are supporting evidence that does not exist?
-
I can't prove there is microfilm,....
Thanks.
JohnM
-
For a start the microfilm was verified by Waldman to be authentic, you lose.
Btw Einstein, even if the microfilm was examined, who is left alive to verify that the microfilm actually came from Kleins, that boat has long sailed, try something new.
JohnM
who is left alive to verify that the microfilm actually came from Kleins
Indeed.... so whatever was on that microfilm, they used Waldmann to "authenticate" it and it's content
In 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......
-
who is left alive to verify that the microfilm actually came from Kleins
Indeed.... so whatever was on that microfilm, they used Waldmann to "authenticate" it and it's content
In 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......
That's some authentication......
Exactly, Waldman took the microfilm from Kleins official records.
JohnM
-
Exactly, Waldman took the microfilm from Kleins official records.
JohnM
Indeed... on 11/23/63, and turned it over to the FBI never to see it again until his WC testimony months later
Now isn't that a sound basis for an authentication....... :-*
-
Now isn't that a sound basis for an authentication....... :-*
Exactly, Waldman took the authentic microfilm from the records and sighted the rifle order. How much more authentication is needed?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
JohnM
-
Exactly, Waldman took the authentic microfilm from the records and sighted the rifle order. How much more authentication is needed?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
JohnM
And your point is?
-
And your point is?
Go the Blues!
JohnM
-
I can't prove there is microfilm, I guess you can't either. So you are supporting evidence that does not exist?
Poor Peter, you really do get yourself so tied up in knots, don't you, so very easily confused. LOL You're not meant to prove the microfilm exists, you were the one who claimed it didn't exist, remember? You were asked to back up that claim but you can't do that, can you? Fact is, you don't even have a clue where or how to start. :D Peter, do yourself a favour, have a sit down, gather up your thoughts and try to remember exactly what it is you're attempting to do here because at the moment, all your doing is making yourself look very silly. OK, 'smart guy' hope that helps. :D :D :D
-
Indeed... on 11/23/63, and turned it over to the FBI never to see it again until his WC testimony months later
Now isn't that a sound basis for an authentication....... :-*
Whew. Klein's searched their records and found the relevant microfilm. How exactly would the microfilm be in Klein's possession to turn over to the FBI if it were not "authentic"? What do you even mean by "authentic" in this context? Are you suggesting fantasy conspirators somehow gained access to Klein's records and inserted the microfilm then asked Klein's to turn them over? That is just the stuff that a pro bono defense attorney (calling Roger Collins) might suggest hoping to confuse a not very bright juror. Not something that is realistic. And so many conspirators to pull all this together despite your protestations of never suggesting a conspiracy.
-
Whew. Klein's searched their records and found the relevant microfilm. How exactly would the microfilm be in Klein's possession to turn over to the FBI if it were not "authentic"? What do you even mean by "authentic" in this context? Are you suggesting fantasy conspirators somehow gained access to Klein's records and inserted the microfilm then asked Klein's to turn them over? That is just the stuff that a pro bono defense attorney (calling Roger Collins) might suggest hoping to confuse a not very bright juror. Not something that is realistic. And so many conspirators to pull all this together despite your protestations of never suggesting a conspiracy.
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.
-
Exactly, Waldman took the authentic microfilm from the records and sighted the rifle order. How much more authentication is needed?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
What is your evidence that Waldman ever personally "sighted the rifle order". And who is "we" in "we examined our microfilm records"? And who is the "they" who "had a record of when it had been shipped"?
-
Did the original Klein's microfilm show something different from what we eventually saw in the Waldman exhibits?
This is from Commission Document 296:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/CD296-moneyorder.png)
Let this sink in....
- Where did the FBI get $21.95 from if the Hidell order blank says $21.45?
- How did they know it was purchased with a postal money order, and where did they get the information that it was issued on March 20?
- If the Klein's records actually contained the C2766 serial number, why did they only say that it was a "similar" rifle?
-
Of course he is.
Iacoletti's always right.
Just like Karen Westbrook Scranton. Fifty-four years after-the-fact, and from behind.
-- MWT ;)
-
Of course he is.
Iacoletti's always right.
Just like Karen Westbrook Scranton.
Let it go, Captain Obsession. You're the one who thinks he has some special intuitive ability to identify people standing along Elm street in the Zapruder film from the back of their heads with nothing other than "because I said so" arguments. Maybe you should try falling on the floor and kicking your feet.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
(Deleted and moved to my Jane Berry, Betty Thornton and Peggy Burney thread.)
-- MWT ;)
-
Thanks.
JohnM
You told me to prove the microfilm DOES NOT exist and I answered "I can't prove it does exist and neither can you" So if I could prove it DOES exist, then you could say thanks. Or if you could prove it DOES exist, then you tell me I was wrong. You made the claim of there being microfilm yet you can't produce it because there is none. You are Welcome to apologize for being wrong twice. Try to focus
-
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.
Check with Roger Collins. Maybe he wrote this:
who is left alive to verify that the microfilm actually came from Kleins
Indeed.... so whatever was on that microfilm, they used Waldmann to "authenticate" it and it's content
In 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......
-
So, who ever said that the microfilm Klein's handed to the FBI was not authentic?