POLL. Is John Iacoletti right to separate the coupon from the envelope in CE773?

[John Iacoletti]

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Of course it does, it's all part of the paper trail.

So is the microfilm. Where is it?

[John Mytton]

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

[Thomas Graves]

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 

[Richard Smith]

"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.

[John Iacoletti]

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

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.

[John Mytton]

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

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

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?

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