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

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: POLL. Is John Iacoletti right to separate the coupon from the envelope in CE773?  (Read 36880 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Did the original Klein's microfilm show something different from what we eventually saw in the Waldman exhibits?

This is from Commission Document 296:



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?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 07:25:26 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2692
Of course he is.

Iacoletti's always right.

Just like Karen Westbrook Scranton.  Fifty-four years after-the-fact, and from behind.

-- MWT   ;)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 11:10:24 PM by Thomas Graves »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
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.

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2692

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.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
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.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 11:33:25 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2692
...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   ;)

Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
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