Handwriting authentication

[Tim Nickerson]

Yes, they did and according to the article this was the reason why;

The FBI said without the original letter it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not," the Justice Department source said.

"And they' (FBI) said "that Oswald has a childlike handwriting and it's easily forged,” the source said, "so they
just can't tell.”

Care to try again, Tim?

The FBI declined to directly comment on the (Hunt) letter's authenticity.

Why are you having trouble understanding that? We have nothing directly from the FBI on the letter. All we have is an unnamed source, reported by Earl Golz, that said that the FBI said some things.

[Martin Weidmann]

The FBI declined to directly comment on the (Hunt) letter's authenticity.

Why are you having trouble understanding that? We have nothing directly from the FBI on the letter. All we have is an unnamed source, reported by Earl Golz, that said that the FBI said some things.

I understand perfectly. On the one hand you want to use part of the quote in the article to somehow make the point that the FBI declined to comment directly (as if that means anything significant), while at the same time you want to dismiss the information in the article as coming from an unnamed source.

When you quote from the article, I can do the same.

The FBI said without the original letter it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not," the Justice Department source said.

Why are you having trouble understanding that without an original copy it would be almost impossible to certify whether the document is genuine or not?

The latter, btw, is what all the handwriting experts I have spoken to over the years have all said.

[Walt Cakebread]

I understand perfectly. On the one hand you want to use part of the quote in the article to somehow make the point that the FBI declined to comment directly (as if that means anything significant), while at the same time you want to dismiss the information in the article as coming from an unnamed source.

When you quote from the article, I can do the same.

The FBI said without the original letter it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not," the Justice Department source said.

Why are you having trouble understanding that without an original copy it would be almost impossible to certify whether the document is genuine or not?

The latter, btw, is what all the handwriting experts I have spoken to over the years have all said.

According to John Currington, the FBI DID have the original ......

[Tim Nickerson]

I understand perfectly. On the one hand you want to use part of the quote in the article to somehow make the point that the FBI declined to comment directly (as if that means anything significant), while at the same time you want to dismiss the information in the article as coming from an unnamed source.

When you quote from the article, I can do the same.

The FBI said without the original letter it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not," the Justice Department source said.

Why are you having trouble understanding that without an original copy it would be almost impossible to certify whether the document is genuine or not?

The latter, btw, is what all the handwriting experts I have spoken to over the years have all said.

I don't accept the word of an unnamed source.

Handwriting identifications made using non-original documents are admissible in courts of law. The FBI handwriting identification expert that examined the Klein's documents was asked about using non-originals during his WC testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you able to identify the handwriting of an individual on the basis of a photograph of that handwriting?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you make an identification, such an identification, if your only questioned document was a photograph if the photograph was sufficiently clear?
Mr. CADIGAN. If the photograph is sufficiently clear, it is adequate for the handwriting comparison.
Mr. EISENBERG. Similarly with standards, if your only standard was a photograph or your only standards were photographs?
Mr. CADIGAN. If your standards were also photographs, it is possible to make the comparison and arrive at a definite opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were the photographs in this case, both the standard and the questioned documents, clear enough to form the 'basis of an opinion?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. I might point out that some of the known standards are original documents and not photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I am aware of that, but I wanted to set out on the record whether the standards which are photographs are adequate----
Mr. CADIGAN. They are adequate.

Alwyn Cole, questioned documents expert with the the U.S. Treasury Department, was also asked about it during his WC testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now show you a photograph of an envelope and a purchase order. The envelope is addressed to Klein's, in Chicago, from one"A. Hidell," and the purchase order, which is included in the photograph, is order also addressed to Klein's from "A. Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined this photograph.
Mr. COLE. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 773?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 773 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this photograph was produced from a roll of microfilm in the possession of Klein's, a Chicago firm which sells weapons of various types, and which sold the assassination weapon. Now, Mr. Cole, I am going to hand you a group of documents which I will identify for the record. The first is an application form to Cosmos Shipping Co., Inc., signed Lee H. Oswald, and containing handprinting and cursive writing. Have you examined that document, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
.........
Mr. EISENBERG. Does a photograph in your opinion provide a sufficient standard on which to base a conclusion as to a questioned document?
Mr. COLE. Well, I believe these particular photographs are satisfactory for that purpose.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you draw a conclusion as to the origin of a questioned document if your only standard was a photograph?
Mr. COLE. If the photographs were comparable to the photographs we have in this case; yes.

[Jerry Freeman]

Earl Golz failed to properly transcribe the text of the note---

The terse note, dated Nov. 8, 1963,^
was addressed to "Dear Mr. Hunt" and
signed by "Lee Harvey Oswald." It
asked for "information concerning my
position ... I am suggesting that we
discuss the matter fully before any
steps are taken by me or anyone else.”

Can you find the error?

I don't accept the word of an unnamed source.

Wishing the slimy liberal press held such virtue....
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/ 

[Tim Nickerson]

Earl Golz failed to properly transcribe the text of the note---Can you find the error?
Wishing the slimy liberal press held such virtue....
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

Concerding. Jerry Kroth is trying to make a big deal out of it. He says that it solidifies the authenticity of the letter. He also falsely claims that two of the HSCA handwriting identification experts authenticated the letter.

[Jerry Freeman]

Concerding. Jerry Kroth is trying to make a big deal out of it. He says that it solidifies the authenticity of the letter. He also falsely claims that two of the HSCA handwriting identification experts authenticated the letter.

You win the cigar. However it was typical Oswald spelling.
Any links on the HSCA analysis of the note?
The HSCA was just a Warren Report rubber stamp anyway.
Just one example of that---- 
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0045a.htm
The Warren Commission concluded this....the Commission found that....and so on