Handwriting authentication

[Tim Nickerson]

So, you agree that the "absolute" conclusions by the WC "FBI experts" are at best highly questionable?

Nope. I do not agree.

[John Iacoletti]

So you “acknowledge” the limitations of examining a copied document, but find the opinions conclusive anyway.

[Martin Weidmann]

Nope. I do not agree.

Care to explain this obvious contradiction?

[Tim Nickerson]

Care to explain this obvious contradiction?

The conclusions of the FBI on the handwriting seen in the photograph that they made from microfilm are minorly questionable, not highly questionable.  They also made conclusions on original documents. Those conclusions are not questionable at all. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The conclusions of the FBI on the handwriting seen in the photograph that they made from microfilm are minorly questionable, not highly questionable.  They also made conclusions on original documents. Those conclusions are not questionable at all.

Tim,

Conclusions by experts are always questionable to some degree. In many cases the two sides will present their own experts who will provide completely contradictory conclusions about the same evidence.

That said, the conclusions they made on original documents were not the subject of this conversation. An expert can be a thousand times right on other original documents and still be wrong on a non-original. And besides, can you explain how an original signature on an original document can be authenticated to having been written by a now dead person?

And finally, whether you say that their conclusions about the Kleins' documents are "minorly" or "highly" questionable, you're only talking about the degree of questionability. In either case the bottom line is that those conclusions are in fact still questionable! Agreed?

[John Iacoletti]

The conclusions of the FBI on the handwriting seen in the photograph that they made from microfilm are minorly questionable, not highly questionable.  They also made conclusions on original documents. Those conclusions are not questionable at all.

All handwriting analysis is questionable. But in this case, the only handwriting that purports to connect Oswald personally to any Carcano is the copy of the 2-inch order coupon from the missing microfilm. And not only is it a copy, but it’s a tiny sample written in block letters.

[Bill Chapman]

By my observation, a quick look at the Kleins order and another Oswald document (seen on 'Texas History') reveals the 'D' in Dallas could easily be from the same person  And the way he handles the 'T' in 'Texas' (along with the prominent slash included in the 'x') is unique and repeated on at least one competing Oswald document.