JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on July 05, 2022, 08:20:16 AM
-
In the new thread "Bogus evidence of bogus evidence" Jerry Freeman quotes from what I believe to be an article written by Earl Golz.
In the article he writes;
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.”
The FBI declined to directly comment on the [Hunt] letter's authenticity. In 1964, the FBI repeatedly identified
handwriting on documents as Oswald's during the Warren Commission investigation. The agency also determined
in several cases that year that signatures of cranks on guest books around the country were not Oswald's.
There seems to be a massive contradiction here. On the one hand, you have an FBI expert confirming Oswald wrote the Kleins' order form documents, while having nothing more available to him than a photocopy of those documents (with limited text), allegedly taken from a, now lost, microfilm.
On the other hand, you have the FBI saying, about the Hunt letter (which contains far more text) that without the original it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not".
If the latter is indeed a quote from the FBI, then why didn't that apply to the documents examined by their expert for the Warren Commission?
-
In the new thread "Bogus evidence of bogus evidence" Jerry Freeman quotes from what I believe to be an article written by Earl Golz.
In the article he writes;
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.”
The FBI declined to directly comment on the [Hunt] letter's authenticity. In 1964, the FBI repeatedly identified
handwriting on documents as Oswald's during the Warren Commission investigation. The agency also determined
in several cases that year that signatures of cranks on guest books around the country were not Oswald's.
There seems to be a massive contradiction here. On the one hand, you have an FBI expert confirming Oswald wrote the Kleins' order form documents, while having nothing more available to him than a photocopy of those documents (with limited text), allegedly taken from a, now lost, microfilm.
On the other hand, you have the FBI saying, about the Hunt letter (which contains far more text) that without the original it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not".
If the latter is indeed a quote from the FBI, then why didn't that apply to the documents examined by their expert for the Warren Commission?
Excellent question Martin, I believe that we all are capable of identifying the author of some piece of correspondence by seeing the hand writing , providing there is sufficient text. I seriously doubt that anybody can identify the person who ordered the carcano from Kleins by examining the order blank. The FBI claimed they could identify that scribbling as that of Lee Oswald. I believe they are liars..... I also believe that the "Dear Mr Hunt" note was in fact written by Lee Oswald.....
-
In the new thread "Bogus evidence of bogus evidence" Jerry Freeman quotes from what I believe to be an article written by Earl Golz.
In the article he writes;
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.”
The FBI declined to directly comment on the [Hunt] letter's authenticity. In 1964, the FBI repeatedly identified
handwriting on documents as Oswald's during the Warren Commission investigation. The agency also determined
in several cases that year that signatures of cranks on guest books around the country were not Oswald's.
There seems to be a massive contradiction here. On the one hand, you have an FBI expert confirming Oswald wrote the Kleins' order form documents, while having nothing more available to him than a photocopy of those documents (with limited text), allegedly taken from a, now lost, microfilm.
On the other hand, you have the FBI saying, about the Hunt letter (which contains far more text) that without the original it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not".
If the latter is indeed a quote from the FBI, then why didn't that apply to the documents examined by their expert for the Warren Commission?
The source said?
The HSCA handwriting identification experts could not positively identify the writing on the Hunt letter as being Oswald's. They pointed out that what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter. Kleins' order form documents were made directly off of microfilm.
-
The source said?
The HSCA handwriting identification experts could not positively identify the writing on the Hunt letter as being Oswald's. They pointed out that what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter. Kleins' order form documents were made directly off of microfilm.
The source said?
Yes, I know... It needs further investigation on my part.
The HSCA handwriting identification experts could not positively identify the writing on the Hunt letter as being Oswald's. They pointed out that what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter. Kleins' order form documents were made directly off of microfilm.
And when it comes to handwriting authentication, what would be the major difference between a facsimile copy and a photo copy taken from a microfilm?
The answer of course is that there is no difference whatsoever. In both cases the handwriting expert only had a copy to work with and as I stated before the FBI's position (about the Hunt letter) was that "without the original it would be almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not".
This is exactly what handwriting experts I have spoken to have been telling me all along and calls into question the alleged "identification" of Oswald's handwriting on the Kleins' documents.
-
The source said?
The HSCA handwriting identification experts could not positively identify the writing on the Hunt letter as being Oswald's. They pointed out that what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter. Kleins' order form documents were made directly off of microfilm.
what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter.
In his book HL Hunt's personal aide said that Mr Hunt gave the "Dear Mr Hunt" note directly to the FBI.
-
The source said?
Yes, I know... It needs further investigation on my part.
The HSCA handwriting identification experts could not positively identify the writing on the Hunt letter as being Oswald's. They pointed out that what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter. Kleins' order form documents were made directly off of microfilm.
And when it comes to handwriting authentication, what would be the major difference between a facsimile copy and a photo copy taken from a microfilm?
The answer of course is that there is no difference whatsoever. In both cases the handwriting expert only had a copy to work with and as I stated before the FBI's position (about the Hunt letter) was that "without the original it would be almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not".
This is exactly what handwriting experts I have spoken to have been telling me all along and calls into question the alleged "identification" of Oswald's handwriting on the Kleins' documents.
Your question is not germane. If you had given my reply the proper attention you would know that the HSCA experts didn't have a facsimile copy at their disposal. They had a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy.
-
what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter.
In his book HL Hunt's personal aide said that Mr Hunt gave the "Dear Mr Hunt" note directly to the FBI.
The HSCA got the photo of the out-of-focus facsimile copy from Penn Jones.
-
The HSCA got the photo of the out-of-focus facsimile copy from Penn Jones.
Horse crap...especially when you never seem to cite any source of your horse crap.
-
Here is the source of the horse crap...
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oltmans%20Willem%20Leonard/Item%2020.pdf
Nothing all that 'fuzzy' with the newspaper clipping.
Also states that George DeMorenschidlt was one of the conspirators. However--- interesting that the HSCA had no apparent interest in the search of the contents of the house where he died [reportedly a suicide]
Funny that the article states that... Why would oil men want to kill Kennedy?
'Accepts' the claim BTW that Oswald killed JFK because he was disappointed in American life.
-
Your question is not germane. If you had given my reply the proper attention you would know that the HSCA experts didn't have a facsimile copy at their disposal. They had a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy.
Of course my question is germane. You just don't like it.
When it is the FBI's position that "without the original it would be almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not", then it doesn't matter if we are talking about a photo copy from a micro film or a photograph of a facsimile copy.
Besides, if the FBI received the original from Hunt, as Walt tells us, then the HSCA could have obtained the original from them, if they wanted to.
-
Of course my question is germane. You just don't like it.
When it is the FBI's position that "without the original it would be almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not", then it doesn't matter if we are talking about a photo copy from a micro film or a photograph of a facsimile copy.
Besides, if the FBI received the original from Hunt, as Walt tells us, then the HSCA could have obtained the original from them, if they wanted to.
The FBI declined to directly comment on the (Hunt) letter's authenticity.
-
what they had at their disposal was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy of the letter.
In his book HL Hunt's personal aide said that Mr Hunt gave the "Dear Mr Hunt" note directly to the FBI.
Actually, Currington stated that Hunt 'instructed' him to turn the note over.
One of the incidents Currington shared dealt with the infamous Hunt letter. According to Currington, the letter actually showed up in Hunt's interoffice mail system shortly after the assassination. Currington was instructed by Hunt to turn it over to the FBI. Currington's view is that Hunt feared that Oswald was possibly a listener to his Life Line radio program or was a reader of Facts Forum, his right wing newsletter. Both of these vehicles spread his pro-fascist and racists views as well as his hatred of Kennedy. There is evidence that Currington had previously produced a copy of the Hunt letter, published in the National Enquirer, in the 1970's soon after Hunt's death
If this is true, and there is no reason for Currington to make it up, that means that the note was certainly written to H.L. Hunt and not E. Howard Hunt. It also means that the KGB couldn't have forged it to embarrass the CIA during the Watergate fiasco since the letter had already been in existence since 1963. Thus it was written before the assassination and not forged later. Further, it confirms that the FBI kept it secret for fourteen years! One wonders if the CIA leaked it to the press at a time when they were under fire for Watergate and accusations were surfacing that they were involved in the assassination, to take the heat off themselves and shift it to the Texas oil men.
MORE....
https://www.theotheroswald.com/post/the-mr-hunt-letter-revisited-by-gary-hill
-
The FBI declined to directly comment on the (Hunt) letter's authenticity.
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?
-
Actually, Currington stated that Hunt 'instructed' him to turn the note over. MORE....
https://www.theotheroswald.com/post/the-mr-hunt-letter-revisited-by-gary-hill
Thanks for the great post, Jerry.... I believe the links you provided are much closer to the truth than the Warren Report....
Why would HL Hunt want Hoover to have the "Dear Mr Hunt" letter ??? Because he wanted J. Edgar Hoover to know that he (HL Hunt) was the Kingpin..... And the man that Hoover should reward for the assassination of JFK. Hunt wanted Hoover to know that it was he who had set Oswald up as the scapegoat.
Like all assassins, who believe they are doing a great service to their country .... Hunt believed that JFK was destroying America
and said that "the Kennedy's have to go".... Hunt had the power and the money to eliminate those he hated....And like all assassins he wanted someone to know that he was to be credited. ( Lee Oswald repeatedly denied that he had killed anybody)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ......
-
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.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ef/f4/e8/eff4e80a6e70ffe0de47fd13871de361.jpg)
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/
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ef/f4/e8/eff4e80a6e70ffe0de47fd13871de361.jpg)
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.
-
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 :-\
-
I believe the Hunt letter is a fake just like the AEC visitor sheet is---
Remember that?
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2018_08/CF2E4657-1A44-4D2E-80F9-D7C14D32B73A.jpeg.cc09d655cd21f490540c689678f0bbe4.jpeg)
Just like I believe the 'Oswald' 1963 passport application was faked and also the passport...'his' Mexico visa application was and the firearms orders were.
-
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 :-\
Item 47.
Findings and conclusions of Joseph McNally:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=239
VIII. The signature, "Lee Harvey Oswald," on the Hunt note (item 47) does not correspond to the Oswald signatures described under section I. To begin with, the bulk of the documents which are signed with the full name, "Lee Harvey Oswald," are more formal in tone. For example, the full name appears on all but one of the Marine Corps documents. The full name appears infrequently elsewhere-usually only the first name, middle initial, and last name are used. Further, in the Hunt note, the middle name "Harvey" is misspelled-the "e" appears to be missing; the "H" of "Harvey" differs from that found in the section I signatures; the "ar" of "Harvey" is ellided to a point that does not occur in any section I signatures; the "0" of "Oswald" is retraced part of the way along the left side, not true of the section I Oswald signatures; and the ending "d" of Oswald is smaller than the preceding "l", whereas most of the ending "d"s of the section I signatures are taller than the "l" (only in signatures that appear to be "squeezed-in" is the end "d" shorter than the preceding "1").
While the script writing on the Hunt note is similar in pictorial quality to the writings under section II, the format of the note differs from that of the notes and letters of section II. The writing line is so exact as almost to give the impression it has been made on a ruled line. Usually Oswald writes in an arhythmic manner--for example, with an irregular and crooked writing line. This writing creates the jumbled effect apparent in the section II documents.
From the examinations of item 47, it was determined that the signature does not correspond with any of the Oswald signatures of section I. Similarly, the writing does not correspond to that in the section II Oswald documents.
Findings and conclusions of David Purtell:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=243
Item 47 was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy. Instead of having clear discernible lines, the copy has indistinct and blurred outlines. Such a muddy and unclear copy gives the appearance that it might have been so made for a purpose.
It should be noted that pictorial similarities can still be noticed between the handwriting appearing on items 18, 29, 39, 40, and 41 listed above, and the documents that have been identified as being written by one person (see A, B, and C). While the handwriting appearing in item 47 contains some of the pictorial similarities, the quality of the writing appears different, and the signature has a strange and distorted appearance
Findings and conclusions of Charles Scott:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=250
It is impossible to determine positively whether the letter to Hunt (item 47) is or is not in the handwriting of the same person as the other writings purporting to be Oswald's.
-
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.
Handwriting identifications made using non-original documents are admissible in courts of law.
In which court were the opinions of those FBI experts admitted?
I don't care much for the selfserving opinions of Cadigan and Cole. Of course they are going to say what they said. If they didn't their own testimony would have been rendered worthless.
Better educate yourself before you write another post, Tim. Contact some real life independent handwriting examiners and ask them. They will tell you that their conclusions are never absolute. They work with levels of probability.
This is the give away that Cadigan is full of it;
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you evaluate the possibility of another person having simulated the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald in these questioned documents?
Mr. CADIGAN. I don't think there is any possibility.
Mr. EISENBERG. On what do you base that?
Mr. CADIGAN. I base that on 23 years experience and judgment and the examination of the documents and the various writings involved in this instance.
Even the biggest fool understands that when you have a photocopy, there is always a possibility of manipulation. For him to claim there is no such possibility only discredits everything else he said.
-
In which court were the opinions of those FBI experts admitted?
That's a disingenuous question from you. You know full well that point I was making.
I don't care much for the selfserving opinions of Cadigan and Cole. Of course they are going to say what they said. If they didn't their own testimony would have been rendered worthless.
Better educate yourself before you write another post, Tim. Contact some real life independent handwriting examiners and ask them. They will tell you that their conclusions are never absolute. They work with levels of probability.
This is the give away that Cadigan is full of it;
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you evaluate the possibility of another person having simulated the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald in these questioned documents?
Mr. CADIGAN. I don't think there is any possibility.
Mr. EISENBERG. On what do you base that?
Mr. CADIGAN. I base that on 23 years experience and judgment and the examination of the documents and the various writings involved in this instance.
Even the biggest fool understands that when you have a photocopy, there is always a possibility of manipulation. For him to claim there is no such possibility only discredits everything else he said.
Ok, you don't like Cadigan or Cole. I'll try to remember that. I'm not surprised though. McNally, Purtell, and Scott were all independent handwriting examiners. They all had private practices.
-
That's a disingenuous question from you. You know full well that point I was making.
Ok, you don't like Cadigan or Cole. I'll try to remember that. I'm not surprised though. McNally, Purtell, and Scott were all independent handwriting examiners. They all had private practices.
That's a disingenuous question from you. You know full well that point I was making.
Yes indeed. It was a moot point.
McNally, Purtell, and Scott were all independent handwriting examiners. They all had private practices.
Yes indeed. And they do not support your "a copy is good enough" position, as they compared the handwriting on the back of the original the DeMohrenschildt BY photo with a signature on an original passport application dated June 24, 1963 and an original signature on a fingerprint card, which were both assumed to having been written by Oswald and they concluded that all were written by the same individual.
Ms. BRADY. Mr. McNally, did the handwriting panel compare the writing on the rear of the photograph with the signature on the passport application?
Mr. McNALLY. Yes; we did.
Ms. BRADY. What conclusion was reached by the panel about those two documents?
Mr. McNALLY. We concluded that the writing--particularly the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald on the lower lefthand corner on the back of the photograph and the signature Lee H. Oswald on the passport application--all of these signatures were written by one, the same individual.
Wow!
They had no way of knowing with any certainty that the handwriting on the passport application and/or the fingerprint card were authentic and had indeed been written by Oswald, or by anybody else, and they had no way to authenticate either document, which makes their conclusion, although perhaps true, irrelevant as evidence derived from unauthenticated other evidence can itself not be deemed to be authentic or conclusive.
I may have missed it in McNally's HSCA testimony, but I couldn't find where he actually said that the person who wrote those three documents was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps you can help me out here, Tim?
And btw; did you notice how the findings and conclusions of Charles Scott:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=250
It is impossible to determine positively whether the letter to Hunt (item 47) is or is not in the handwriting of the same person as the other writings purporting to be Oswald's.
are along the same lines as what the article said about the position taken by the FBI;
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.”
-
I believe the Hunt letter is a fake just like the AEC visitor sheet is---
Remember that?
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2018_08/CF2E4657-1A44-4D2E-80F9-D7C14D32B73A.jpeg.cc09d655cd21f490540c689678f0bbe4.jpeg)
Just like I believe the 'Oswald' 1963 passport application was faked and also the passport...'his' Mexico visa application was and the firearms orders were.
I'm disappointed that you believe the "Dear Mr Hunt" note is a fake. I believe that it is authentic and the "Mr Hunt " is HL Hunt....
John Currington knew this and wanted us to know that HL Hunt had been in contact with Lee Oswald before the assassination.
Currington didn't want to take his secret to the grave ..... He had information that he felt the people should know.
If Currington had thought the note was a fake, I seriously doubt that he would have included it his book.
-
I'm disappointed that you believe the "Dear Mr Hunt" note is a fake. I believe that it is authentic and the "Mr Hunt " is HL Hunt....
John Currington knew this and wanted us to know that HL Hunt had been in contact with Lee Oswald before the assassination.
Why? Why would LHO write this note to HLH [and make sure it was dated]?
The note does tend to incriminate Oswald for a planned crime that he was never aware of.
If JC "wanted us to know that Hunt was in contact with Oswald" then why wait for years to present it?
Withholding evidence is a crime.
Where is that original note? How would Hunt and Oswald ever have met?
Why would Oswald use his real name instead of signing the note with the alleged alias...A J Hidell?
According to the timeline... November 8, 1963: Frazier drops LHO off at the Paine's home, as usual.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Perhaps Tommy Graves was right...[A Soviet KGB hoax] Or was it some kind of deep state hoax to jerk us all around?
-
Why? Why would LHO write this note to HLH [and make sure it was dated]?
The note does tend to incriminate Oswald for a planned crime that he was never aware of.
If JC "wanted us to know that Hunt was in contact with Oswald" then why wait for years to present it?
Withholding evidence is a crime.
Where is that original note? How would Hunt and Oswald ever have met?
Why would Oswald use his real name instead of signing the note with the alleged alias...A J Hidell?
According to the timeline... https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Perhaps Tommy Graves was right...[A Soviet KGB hoax] Or was it some kind of deep state hoax to jerk us all around?
Why? Why would LHO write this note to HLH [and make sure it was dated]?
Make sure it was dated?.... Isn't it common practice to put the date at the top of a letter?...
The note does tend to incriminate Oswald for a planned crime that he was never aware of.
You're putting the mule behind the plow.... You know that JFK was murdered but you have no idea that, that is what Lee was referring to when he wrote: " I suggest that we discuss the matter------- " If Currington wanted us to know that Hunt was in contact with Oswald" then why wait for years to present it?
Currington's first loyalty was to HL Hunt.... After Hunt died....He felt relieved of defending him.
-
Since Tim seems to respect the opinion of David Purtell:
“Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction. In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made.”
-
Make sure it was dated?.... Isn't it common practice to put the date at the top of a letter?...
A more formal letter perhaps ...but a brief note and an intriguing one at that?
The note does tend to incriminate Oswald for a planned crime that he was never aware of.
You're putting the mule behind the plow.... You know that JFK was murdered but you have no idea that is what Lee was referring to when he wrote: " I suggest that we discuss the matter------- "
I wouldn't imagine that 'the matter' referred to a birthday party or a football game.
What would a Texas oil millionaire have in common with a lowly school book order filler?
How would Hunt and Oswald ever have met?
Answer would be that doubtfully..they ever did.
T N mentioned the study by Jerry Kroth. Prof Kroth got all excited about the note's spelling of-- concerding
He found that the same spelling is found in some letter that Oswald sent to the American Embassy back in 1961.
The trouble I had with this is that I don't think Oswald penned or typed that letter because the rest of the text was flawless in grammar as well as spelling. I think that someone typed that embassy letter for him.
What about 'concerding'?.... I haven't the foggiest.
-
A more formal letter perhaps ...but a brief note and an intriguing one at that? I wouldn't imagine that 'the matter' referred to a birthday party or a football game.
What would a Texas oil millionaire have in common with a lowly school book order filler?Answer would be that doubtfully..they ever did.
T N mentioned the study by Jerry Kroth. Prof Kroth got all excited about the note's spelling of-- concerding
He found that the same spelling is found in some letter that Oswald sent to the American Embassy back in 1961.
The trouble I had with this is that I don't think Oswald penned or typed that letter because the rest of the text was flawless in grammar as well as spelling. I think that someone typed that embassy letter for him.
What about 'concerding'?.... I haven't the foggiest.
I wouldn't imagine that 'the matter' referred to a birthday party or a football game.
No , Lee didn't want to talk to Mr Hunt about some trivial matter, I agree , you're right ..... Lee wouldn't have wanted to talk to HL Hunt about some trivial matter.... The very tone of the note indicates that he was worried ......
And we are left to speculate about the subject that Lee wanted to discuss..... Since we all have 20-20 hindsight and we know that JFK was murdered less than two weeks after Lee wrote the note we can easily suspect that the note was related to the assassination....But there is NOTHING in that note that even hints as such a possibility.
I strongly suspect that Lee had picked up info that The Dallas Birchers or minute men were planning something for JFK's visit to Dallas. I believe that Hunt knew that Lee Oswald had been involved in the hoax attack on Walker and thought that maybe he could recruit Lee to participate in another dumb stunt.
-
Since Tim seems to respect the opinion of David Purtell:
“Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction. In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made.”
As you are aware, from the times we spent discussing the authentication of the handwriting on the money order by the HSCA experts and others, that is something that I have acknowledged. And I've done so many times.
-
As you are aware, from the times we spent discussing the authentication of the handwriting on the money order by the HSCA experts and others, that is something that I have acknowledged. And I've done so many times.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2613.msg94082.html#msg94082
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2613.msg94082.html#msg94082
As you are aware, from the times we spent discussing the authentication of the handwriting on the money order by the HSCA experts and others, that is something that I have acknowledged. And I've done so many times.
So, you agree that the "absolute" conclusions by the WC "FBI experts" are at best highly questionable?
-
So, you agree that the "absolute" conclusions by the WC "FBI experts" are at best highly questionable?
Nope. I do not agree.
-
So you “acknowledge” the limitations of examining a copied document, but find the opinions conclusive anyway.
-
Nope. I do not agree.
Care to explain this obvious contradiction?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
A quick look at the Kleins order seen here and on 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.
And you know for sure the other "Oswald document" was actually written by Oswald?
could easily be from the same person
Wow, that's conclusive.... :D
-
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.
Highlighted letters (and the very unique handling of 'Texas') are items to watch
for when looking at competing Oswald documents.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYKZgpt8/Ozzie-letters-to-key-on.png)
billchapman
-
Highlighted letters (and the very unique handling of 'Texas') are items to watch
for when looking at competing Oswald documents.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYKZgpt8/Ozzie-letters-to-key-on.png)
billchapman
I am no handwriting expert, but if you compare the “Texas” written in his letter from Russia to his mother, to the one on the money order, there does appear to me to be some similarities…
(https://i.vgy.me/hrE5s5.png)
Interesting observation there Bill, thanks!
-
I am no handwriting expert, but if you compare the “Texas” written in his letter from Russia to his mother, to the one on the money order, there does appear to me to be some similarities…
Interesting observation there Bill, thanks!
Thanks, very helpful Charles
The hits just keep on comin'
1) 'The' and 'There' replicate the weird 'T' Ozzie uses in 'Texas'
2) The aggressive slash (/) completes the 'X' in Texas, along with Oswald's hand in the MO
2) The cursive 'D' seen on the MO reappears to slap critics upside the head
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2RMdgwN/OZZIE-TEXAS-HANDWRITING.png)
-
Highlighted letters (and the very unique handling of 'Texas') are items to watch
for when looking at competing Oswald documents.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYKZgpt8/Ozzie-letters-to-key-on.png)
billchapman
The hits just keep on comin'
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2RMdgwN/OZZIE-TEXAS-HANDWRITING.png)
The weird 'T' in 'Texas' on the MO is repeated on other Oswald documents
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzFbZLdH/OZZIE-D-CAP-CURSIVE-01.png)
The cursive capital 'D' seen on the MO is repeated on competing Oswald documents
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1LthG14/OZZIE-D-CAP-CURSIVE-02.png)
The cursive capital 'D' seen on the MO is repeated on competing Oswald documents
-
The hits just keep on comin'
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2RMdgwN/OZZIE-TEXAS-HANDWRITING.png)
The weird 'T' in 'Texas' on the MO is repeated on other Oswald documents
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzFbZLdH/OZZIE-D-CAP-CURSIVE-01.png)
The cursive capital 'D' seen on the MO is repeated on competing Oswald documents
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1LthG14/OZZIE-D-CAP-CURSIVE-02.png)
The cursive capital 'D' seen on the MO is repeated on competing Oswald documents
Your opinion is based on the similarity of one letter..... The capital "D"... That's not very conclusive, or convincing.
-
Your opinion is based on the similarity of one letter..... The capital "D"... That's not very conclusive, or convincing.
It's a start and that's what I'm doing
Call it a feasibility study
You have ignored the far more telling item, which is not only in the way he writes the 'T' in 'Texas', but the way that his cursive capital 'T' in two other words display the exact same odd-looking 'T' as on the MO. Apparently Oswald missed the 'cross your tees' memo
-
The money order found in Virginia cannot be associated with any specific Klein’s order.
-
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?
i disagree that their conclusions are questionable. Particularly in light of the money order.
-
i disagree that their conclusions are questionable. Particularly in light of the money order.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said;
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.
How can their conclusions be "minor questionable" yet not questionable at all?
-
Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said;
How can their conclusions be "minor questionable" yet not questionable at all?
I changed my mind. They would be minorly questionable on their own. When taken together with the money order, they are not questionable at all.
-
I changed my mind. They would be minorly questionable on their own. When taken together with the money order, they are not questionable at all.
Amazing.... I've never before seen you this much all over the place.
Talk about trying to make evidence fit by making assumptions and ignoring facts.
-
That's how you build a mountain of evidence... Thumb1:
That's how you build a mountain of evidence lies... Thumb1:
-
Horse crap...especially when you never seem to cite any source of your horse crap.
If the carcano was not the murder weapon ( and it wasn't).....then who cares if it was ordered by Lee Oswald or Mickey mouse?
-
The hits just keep on comin'
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2RMdgwN/OZZIE-TEXAS-HANDWRITING.png)
The weird 'T' in 'Texas' on the MO is repeated on other Oswald documents
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzFbZLdH/OZZIE-D-CAP-CURSIVE-01.png)
The cursive capital 'D' seen on the MO is repeated on competing Oswald documents
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1LthG14/OZZIE-D-CAP-CURSIVE-02.png)
The cursive capital 'D' seen on the MO is repeated on competing Oswald documents
The Hunt for Red October Oswald continues: Note, if you will, the cursive capital 'G' which matches
the 'G' in 'Kleins Sporting Goods' in the MO. Also note a repeat of the weird uppercase 'T' that is seen
when Oswald wrote 'Texas' on the MO
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYKZgpt8/Ozzie-letters-to-key-on.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrZnrb78/CURSIVE-CAP-G.png)
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338561/m1/1/
-
If the carcano was not the murder weapon ( and it wasn't).....then who cares if it was ordered by Lee Oswald or Mickey mouse?
What a great psychological insight into the CTer mind. Here we learn that Walt is not interested in who actually ordered the MC rifle that the history books conclude was used to kill JFK. The objective is to exonerate Oswald. Not to figure out who was behind the grand conspiracy. Why? Because any analysis of the facts and evidence of this case can't be reconciled with any consistent conspiracy narrative. So the objective must, by necessity, be limited to pedantic, defense attorney-like nitpicking of the evidence against Oswald even if, by implication, what is being suggested as an alternative makes no sense.
-
“History books”. LOL.
-
What a great psychological insight into the CTer mind. Here we learn that Walt is not interested in who actually ordered the MC rifle that the history books conclude was used to kill JFK. The objective is to exonerate Oswald. Not to figure out who was behind the grand conspiracy. Why? Because any analysis of the facts and evidence of this case can't be reconciled with any consistent conspiracy narrative. So the objective must, by necessity, be limited to pedantic, defense attorney-like nitpicking of the evidence against Oswald even if, by implication, what is being suggested as an alternative makes no sense.
the MC rifle that the history books conclude was used to kill JFK.
Don't you know that the victor writes the history books? In this case the victor was LBJ.... and it's his story...
-
the MC rifle that the history books conclude was used to kill JFK.
Don't you know that the victor writes the history books? In this case the victor was LBJ.... and it's his story...
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdYjdprv/lbj-hoover.png)
-
The Hunt for Red October Oswald continues: Note, if you will, the cursive capital 'G' which matches
the 'G' in 'Kleins Sporting Goods' in the MO. Also note a repeat of the weird uppercase 'T' that is seen
when Oswald wrote 'Texas' on the MO
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYKZgpt8/Ozzie-letters-to-key-on.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrZnrb78/CURSIVE-CAP-G.png)
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338561/m1/1/
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzdYKYsh/HIDELL-MINSK.png)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzdYKYsh/HIDELL-MINSK.png)
You really believe you've actually got something of significance there, don't you?
It's hilarious to see you turn yourself into some sort of handwriting expert. No wait, it's actually pretty pathetic.
-
That’s basically all that “real” handwriting “experts” do as well.
Looks the same to me!
It’s all a big pseudo-scientific joke.
-
That’s basically all that “real” handwriting “experts” do as well.
Looks the same to me!
It’s all a big pseudo-scientific joke.
Either the comparisons match MO v Oswald docs, or they don't.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzdYKYsh/HIDELL-MINSK.png)
Here comes that Oswaldian open-looped cursive 'D' seen on the MO + Ozzie#docs
.. plus that angry-looking slash cutting 'Texas' in half
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRLbYzTf/OPEN-LOOP-D.png)
-
the MC rifle that the history books conclude was used to kill JFK.
Don't you know that the victor writes the history books? In this case the victor was LBJ.... and it's his story...
LBJ writes the history books? I thought folks like Robert Caro did that. The foremost historian on LBJ who found no evidence of his involvement in the JFK assassination despite spending decades in the archives.
-
You really believe you've actually got something of significance there, don't you?
It's hilarious to see you turn yourself into some sort of handwriting expert. No wait, it's actually pretty pathetic.
Close: I was a hand-lettering expert
And once again, you seem spooked, panicked even, by yet another one of my clever initiatives
It was Oswald's MO
-
LBJ writes the history books? I thought folks like Robert Caro did that. The foremost historian on LBJ who found no evidence of his involvement in the JFK assassination despite spending decades in the archives.
My dear dumbass....Perhaps it will come as a surprise to you but ......LBJ formed the Warren Commission, and he told them that he wanted them to find that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and he acted alone and had no accomplices......
That hisstory
-
Either the comparisons match MO v Oswald docs, or they don't.
And either Oswald looked like the guy with the gun or he didn't
-
Here comes that Oswaldian open-looped cursive 'D' seen on the MO + Ozzie#docs
.. plus that angry-looking slash cutting 'Texas' in half
Let's go back to that sign in visitors to the AEC Museum....
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_d9kZfc4kK-Y/TMghzJS7JTI/AAAAAAAAOSA/evjB_2k_K-Q/s1600/MASO_nary-wcdocs-49_0001_0005%5B1%5D.jpg)
Upon scrutiny... one sees several "Oswaldian" Ds Gs and Ts formed by other signatures.
As usual, you have demonstrated nothing.
Oswaldian.... :D
-
My dear dumbass....Perhaps it will come as a surprise to you but ......LBJ formed the Warren Commission, and he told them that he wanted them to find that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and he acted alone and had no accomplices......
That hisstory
Actually the commission was tasked to make sure there was no conspiracy and that Oswald had no compatriots.
That memo was badly written, just as 'the right to bear arms' was.
You lot are p*ssed because for the most part your cracked and semi-cracked pet theories are largely ignored. And for good reason.
-
Has it escaped anybody’s attention that none of Chapman’s armchair analysis has been applied to the thing that is actually about a Carcano rifle?
-
Let's go back to that sign in visitors to the AEC Museum....
Upon scrutiny... one sees several "Oswaldian" Ds Gs and Ts formed by other signatures.
As usual, you have demonstrated nothing.
Oswaldian.... :D
Either MO v Ozzie*docs match sufficiently to at least raise an eyebrow or two, or they don't
-
Has it escaped anybody’s attention that none of Chapman’s armchair analysis has been applied to the thing that is actually about a Carcano rifle?
Has it escaped Iacoletti's attention that I've matched MO handwriting to Ozzie#docs?
Has it escaped Iacoletti's attention that I have never claimed to analyze armchairs?
-
Has it escaped Iacoletti's attention that I've matched MO handwriting to Ozzie#docs?
Has it escaped Iacoletti's attention that I have never claimed to analyze armchairs?
What "Ozzie#docs"?
The ones you do not even know for sure and most certainly can't prove that Oswald actually wrote them?
And either Oswald looked like the guy with the gun or he didn't
looked like the guy
What a perfect example of just how low the standard of proof for an LN really is. :D
-
What "Ozzie#docs"?
The ones you do not even know for sure and most certainly can't prove that Oswald actually wrote them?
looked like the guy
What a perfect example of just how low the standard of proof for an LN really is. :D
I have no reason to suspect any fakery
Now take this up with The Portal to Texas History and the Patton witnesses
-
You mean the money order allegedly found in Virginia that is not in any known Klein’s records and can’t be associated with a Carcano or any specific Klein’s order?
-
I have no reason to suspect any fakery
Now take this up with The Portal to Texas History and the Patton witnesses
I have no reason to suspect any fakery
Another fine example of just how shallow the LN mind is.
Of course you haven't choir boy, but that's not the point.
If you start making claims, never mind how pathetic, that are based on a comparison with other documents, your claims are worthless if you can't show that the documents used for the comparision are indeed authentic.
As you can't do that, you've got nothing of any value.
Perhaps you should take it up with the The Portal to Texas History.
Why you would drag the Patton witnesses into the conversation is a complete mystery to me. None of them can authenticate Oswald's handwriting, right?
-
I have no reason to suspect any fakery
Another fine example of just how shallow the LN mind is.
Of course you haven't choir boy, but that's not the point.
If you start making claims, never mind how pathetic, that are based on a comparison with other documents, your claims is worthless if you can't show that the documents used for the comparision are indeed authentic.
As you can't do that, you've got nothing of any value.
Perhaps you should take it up with the The Portal to Texas History.
Why you would drag the Patton witnesses into the conversation is a complete mystery to me. None of them can authenticate Oswald's handwriting, right?
Another fine example of just how shallow the LN mind is.
_ Another fine example of the rampant paranoia that has been washing over CTer/JAQer/TAEer/Oswald Arse Kisser ranks since Day One, and leaving nothing more than crackpot mudslinging behind.
Of course you haven't choir boy, but that's not the point.
_Interested in choir boys I see. Sorry, not on my bucket list
If you start making claims, never mind how pathetic, that are based on a comparison with other documents, your claims is worthless if you can't show that the documents used for the comparision are indeed authentic.
_ You've denied being a CT in the past. So why would you need anything other than what has been forwarded as Oswald docs all these years..
As you can't do that, you've got nothing of any value.
Perhaps you should take it up with the The Portal to Texas History.
_The Portal of Texas History
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340016/
Photocopy of handwritten notes by Lee Harvey Oswald. In the notes, Oswald writes of an invitation he received to give a lecture in Russian, his attempts to form a branch of the FPCC, his skills in the field of photography and street agitation, his interests in Communism, his time lived in Russia, and his service in the USMC.
----------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps you would like to share with us where you might find something sinister enough to cause somebody to fake a note about an Oswald lecture that was essentially dripping with braggadocio.
Why you would drag the Patton witnesses into the conversation is a complete mystery to me. None of them can authenticate Oswald's handwriting, right?
_They can all authenticate his face. And just as he was the only gun-toter in sight, I was able to match the handwriting on the MO to the handwriting on the only pertinent docs in sight.
-
In the new thread "Bogus evidence of bogus evidence" Jerry Freeman quotes from what I believe to be an article written by Earl Golz.
In the article he writes;
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.”
The FBI declined to directly comment on the [Hunt] letter's authenticity. In 1964, the FBI repeatedly identified
handwriting on documents as Oswald's during the Warren Commission investigation. The agency also determined
in several cases that year that signatures of cranks on guest books around the country were not Oswald's.
There seems to be a massive contradiction here. On the one hand, you have an FBI expert confirming Oswald wrote the Kleins' order form documents, while having nothing more available to him than a photocopy of those documents (with limited text), allegedly taken from a, now lost, microfilm.
On the other hand, you have the FBI saying, about the Hunt letter (which contains far more text) that without the original it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not".
If the latter is indeed a quote from the FBI, then why didn't that apply to the documents examined by their expert for the Warren Commission?
Handwriting can easily be forged especially when you don't have an original copy and it's a photocopy that's being presented.
Forged copies are always photo copied trying to make it appear genuine.
-
Handwriting can easily be forged especially when you don't have an original copy and it's a photocopy that's being presented.
Forged copies are always photo copied trying to make it appear genuine.
Tell us why Oswald's handwriting would have to be forged.
They already had the little prick dead-to-rights, ffs
He even confessed. And multiple trolls heard it as they kneeled nearby
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpJrDWw6/222-GRAVE.png)
billchapman
-
Tell us why Oswald's handwriting would have to be forged.
They already had the little prick dead-to-rights, ffs
They didn’t have squat. And neither do you.
-
They didn’t have squat. And neither do you.
Please take it easy on our lil Chappie..... He believes in fairy tales and we should allow for that.
He loves to hiss and boo at Snidley Whiplash when he watches the toons.... Some folks simply have to have an easily identifiable villain..... And Lee Harvey Ossssswald ( Booooo! Hisss ) fills that need.....
-
Another fine example of just how shallow the LN mind is.
_ Another fine example of the rampant paranoia that has been washing over CTer/JAQer/TAEer/Oswald Arse Kisser ranks since Day One, and leaving nothing more than crackpot mudslinging behind.
Of course you haven't choir boy, but that's not the point.
_Interested in choir boys I see. Sorry, not on my bucket list
If you start making claims, never mind how pathetic, that are based on a comparison with other documents, your claims is worthless if you can't show that the documents used for the comparision are indeed authentic.
_ You've denied being a CT in the past. So why would you need anything other than what has been forwarded as Oswald docs all these years..
As you can't do that, you've got nothing of any value.
Perhaps you should take it up with the The Portal to Texas History.
_The Portal of Texas History
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340016/
Photocopy of handwritten notes by Lee Harvey Oswald. In the notes, Oswald writes of an invitation he received to give a lecture in Russian, his attempts to form a branch of the FPCC, his skills in the field of photography and street agitation, his interests in Communism, his time lived in Russia, and his service in the USMC.
----------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps you would like to share with us where you might find something sinister enough to cause somebody to fake a note about an Oswald lecture that was essentially dripping with braggadocio.
Why you would drag the Patton witnesses into the conversation is a complete mystery to me. None of them can authenticate Oswald's handwriting, right?
_They can all authenticate his face. And just as he was the only gun-toter in sight, I was able to match the handwriting on the MO to the handwriting on the only pertinent docs in sight.
You've denied being a CT in the past. So why would you need anything other than what has been forwarded as Oswald docs all these years..
What a pathetically stupid question to ask. Documents used for comparision for the sole purpose of authenticating other documents should themselves also be authenticated. That's how it works in the real world. It has nothing to do with being either a CT or a LN. Anybody who just blindly accepts something as authentic without actually knowing that it is, is a damned fool.
Perhaps you would like to share with us where you might find something sinister enough to cause somebody to fake a note about an Oswald lecture that was essentially dripping with braggadocio.
Another stupid question. Boy you're on a roll. You've missed the entire point of handwriting authentication. It doesn't matter what type of document you use for comparision, the document - sinister or not - still needs to be authenticated itself before being used.
I was able to match the handwriting on the MO to the handwriting on the only pertinent docs in sight.
Delusions of grandeur aside, now all you have to do is show that those documents were indeed written by Oswald.
It seems LNs like you don't like evidence authentication one bit. Why is that?
-
You've denied being a CT in the past. So why would you need anything other than what has been forwarded as Oswald docs all these years..
What a pathetically stupid question to ask. Documents used for comparision for the sole purpose of authenticating other documents should themselves also be authenticated. That's how it works in the real world. It has nothing to do with being either a CT or a LN. Anybody who just blindly accepts something as authentic without actually knowing that it is, is a damned fool.
Perhaps you would like to share with us where you might find something sinister enough to cause somebody to fake a note about an Oswald lecture that was essentially dripping with braggadocio.
Another stupid question. Boy you're on a roll. You've missed the entire point of handwriting authentication. It doesn't matter what type of document you use for comparision, the document - sinister or not - still needs to be authenticated itself before being used.
I was able to match the handwriting on the MO to the handwriting on the only pertinent docs in sight.
Delusions of grandeur aside, now all you have to do is show that those documents were indeed written by Oswald.
"You've missed the entire point of handwriting authentication"
No. You missed the entire point of my feasibility study
The document - sinister or not - still needs to be authenticated itself before being used"
'Before being used' you say
Yeah. In court
You are out of order, mister
This is a discussion forum
-
"You've missed the entire point of handwriting authentication"
No. You missed the entire point of my feasibility study
The document - sinister or not - still needs to be authenticated itself before being used"
'Before being used' you say
Yeah. In court
You are out of order, mister
This is a discussion forum
my feasibility study
LOL
This is a discussion forum
Yes it is, but that doesn't mean that you can make up stuff as you please and make bogus claims.
But thank you for implicitly admitting that your claims, in the real world, are completely without merit.
-
my feasibility study
LOL
This is a discussion forum
Yes it is, but that doesn't mean that you can make up stuff as you please and make bogus claims.
But thank you for implicitly admitting that your claims, in the real world, are completely without merit.
----------------------
feasible;
aka probable, likely
----------------------
Yes it is, but that doesn't mean that you can make up stuff as you please and make bogus claims.
_ Show us where I 'made stuff up' or made 'bogus claims' in my MO handwriting comparisons.
-
----------------------
feasible;
aka probable, likely
----------------------
Yes it is, but that doesn't mean that you can make up stuff as you please and make bogus claims.
_ Show us where I 'made stuff up' or made 'bogus claims' in my MO handwriting comparisons.
----------------------
feasible;
aka probable, likely
----------------------
There is nothing feasible, probable or likely in a study based on self-serving assumptions
Yes it is, but that doesn't mean that you can make up stuff as you please and make bogus claims.
_ Show us where I 'made stuff up' or made 'bogus claims' in my MO handwriting comparisons.
Easy... every time you implied and/or claimed the handwriting on the money order to be Oswald's, simply because you assume, without any kind of authentication, that comparison documents were actually written by him.
Just read the previous posts in this thread. Your bogus claims are all over them.
-
They didn’t have squat. And neither do you.
I have a groundbreaking study that puts the MO flowing right out of Oswald's pen
-
I have a groundbreaking study that puts the MO flowing right out of Oswald's pen
No, you have delusions of grandeur and seriously need to consider to get help
Btw, where does this "groundbreaking study" show that the pen used to fill out the money order belonged to Oswald?
-
No, you have delusions of grandeur and seriously need to consider to get help
Btw, where does this "groundbreaking study" show that the pen used to fill out the money order belonged to Oswald?
The authenticators on Patton
'need to consider to get help'
Did you just have a series of strokes? that f'n grammar of yours...
-
The authenticators on Patton
'need to consider to get help'
Did you just have a series of strokes? that f'n grammar of yours...
Get help, you're 99,5% less as good as you think you are.
Did you just have a series of strokes? that f'n grammar of yours...
It's not my problem that you don't understand English
Or is it just another one of those pathetic diversions to shift the conversation away from your own stupidity?
-
Get help, you're 99,5% less as good as you think you are.
Did you just have a series of strokes? that f'n grammar of yours...
It's not my problem that you don't understand English
Or is it just another one of those pathetic diversions to shift the conversation away from your own stupidity?
Get help, you're 99,5% less as good as you think you are.
_ Get help. You're only .5% of the man you think you are
-
Get help, you're 99,5% less as good as you think you are.
Did you just have a series of strokes? that f'n grammar of yours...
It's not my problem that you don't understand English
Or is it just another one of those pathetic diversions to shift the conversation away from your own stupidity?
You seriously need to consider to get help
_ You seriously need to consider getting help
You seriously need to get help
You need to get help. Seriously.
Get help. No, really.
Cool, huh. I get to return your insults and correct your crappy grammar at the same time
-
Get help, you're 99,5% less as good as you think you are.
_ Get help. You're only .5% of the man you think you are
Originality isn't your forte, is it now?
A response of a 5 year old....
-
You seriously need to consider to get help
_ You seriously need to consider getting help
Cool, huh. I get to return your insults and correct your crappy grammar at the same time
Nothing to correct. Both work, fool
Now, how about you answering my question?
Where does this "groundbreaking study" show that the pen used to fill out the money order belonged to Oswald?
-
Tell us why Oswald's handwriting would have to be forged.
They already had the little prick dead-to-rights, ffs
He even confessed. And multiple trolls heard it as they kneeled nearby
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpJrDWw6/222-GRAVE.png)
billchapman
Where did I say Oswald's handwriting was forged?
-
Originality isn't your forte, is it now?
A response of a 5 year old....
A response of a 5 year old
_ The response of a 5 year old; and you should try to stop doing that
In fact, you seriously need to consider getting help
You seriously need to get help
You need to get help. Seriously.
Get help. No, really.
-
A response of a 5 year old
_ The response of a 5 year old; and you should try to stop doing that
In fact, you seriously need to consider getting help
You seriously need to get help
You need to get help. Seriously.
Get help. No, really.
You really are extremely desperate not to discuss this so-called "groundbreaking study" of yours, aren't you?
One can only wonder why
-
Nothing to correct. Both work, fool
Now, how about you answering my question?
Where does this "groundbreaking study" show that the pen used to fill out the money order belonged to Oswald?
Always with the insult
I'll bet you're a snowflake face-to-face
Why so concerned about Oswalds bic?
And I already answered that
-
Always with the insult
I'll bet you're a snowflake face-to-face
Why so concerned about Oswalds bic?
And I already answered that
I'll bet you're a snowflake face-to-face
LOL
Why so concerned about Oswalds bic?
I'm not. You brought it up and, as it turns out, you can't even answer a simple question about it.
And I already answered that
No you didn't. You're a liar. But we already know that, so what else is new?
-
I'll bet you're a snowflake face-to-face
LOL
Why so concerned about Oswalds bic?
I'm not. You brought it up and, as it turns out, you can't even answer a simple question about it.
And I already answered that
No you didn't. You're a liar. But we already know that, so what else is new?
It was the Patton authenticators who put the MO in Oswald's pen. I told you that.
Shame on you for passing the buck when your own limitations are the real culprits.
-
It was the Patton authenticators who put the MO in Oswald's pen. I told you that.
Shame on you for passing the buck when your own limitations are the real culprits.
It was the Patton authenticators who put the MO in Oswald's pen. I told you that.
Your "logic" would probably be easier to follow if it was backwards and in Chinese.
All you are telling me, and any other normal rational person, is that you have just thrown a bunch of pathetic assumptions together where there is no connection whatsoever. But hey, what else can you expect from a loony LNr.
And, btw, none of your crappy conclusions show that the pen used to fill out the money order actually belonged to Oswald, as you claimed
.
Perhaps you did not understand the ever so simple question? Could that be, "mastermind"?
But let's see if I can understand your special kind of "logic";
Some people at Patton said that Tippit's killer looked like Oswald, so Oswald must have written the money order to buy the rifle that allegedly was used to kill Kennedy, and he did so using a pen that belonged to him....
Did I understand that correctly?
-
Where did I say Oswald's handwriting was forged?
1) I take the initiative and quickly discover* that the MO handwriting v Oswald docs show matches
2) A number of 'questioned document' jockeys find some of the same kind of matches
3) Yet you say my efforts have 'no merit'. Then you'll have to include those lettermen.
Yep. You're calling Oswald's documents forged. Now let me add planted, faked or altered in some way.
* I was a hand-lettering expert at the beginning of my career.
-
1) I take the initiative and quickly discover* that the MO handwriting v Oswald docs show matches
2) A number of 'questioned document' jockeys find some of the same kind of matches
3) Yet you say my efforts have 'no merit'. Then you'll have to include those lettermen.
Yep. You're calling Oswald's documents forged. Now let me add planted, faked or altered in some way.
* I was a hand-lettering expert at the beginning of my career.
I was a hand-lettering expert at the beginning of my career.
Sure you were. Was that before they locked you up in the loony bin or did you convince yourself of that after?
-
It was the Patton authenticators who put the MO in Oswald's pen. I told you that.
Your "logic" would probably be easier to follow if it was backwards and in Chinese.
All you are telling me, and any other normal rational person, is that you have just thrown a bunch of pathetic assumptions together where there is no connection whatsoever. But hey, what else can you expect from a loony LNr.
And, btw, none of your crappy conclusions show that the pen used to fill out the money order actually belonged to Oswald, as you claimed
.
Perhaps you did not understand the ever so simple question? Could that be, "mastermind"?
But let's see if I can understand your special kind of "logic";
Some people at Patton said that Tippit's killer looked like Oswald, so Oswald must have written the money order to buy the rifle that allegedly was used to kill Kennedy, and he did so using a pen that belonged to him....
Did I understand that correctly?
And, btw, none of your crappy conclusions show that the pen used to fill out the money order actually belonged to Oswald, as you claimed
I claimed no such thing, professor
Here, let me clarify:
It was the Patton authenticators who put the MO in Oswald's pen, so-to-speak.
There, fixed it for ya, Martin
-
I was a hand-lettering expert at the beginning of my career.
Sure you were. Was that before they locked you up in the loony bin or did you convince yourself of that after?
There you go again. If you haven't acquired a given skill, then neither has anyone else
-
There you go again. If you haven't acquired a given skill, then neither has anyone else
"If". Just keep guessing, little man. You will never know.
I never said you had not acquired a skill, because that would be a lie. You clearly have acquired the skill of lying.
First you falsely claim to be a succesfull artist, now you claim to having been a handwriting expert.
What will be next?
-
Oh, but I have. Much more than you will ever know.
You on the other hand have only acquired the skill of lying.
First you falsely claim to be a succesfull artist, now you claim to having been a handwriting expert.
What will be next?
Oh, but I have. Much more than you will ever know.
_Guess I'll have to take you at your word, then
You on the other hand have only acquired the skill of lying.
_ I did not know that. You, on the other hand, seem born to it
First you falsely claim to be a succesfull artist, now you claim to having been a handwriting expert.
_Define what succesfull 'successful' means to you
What will be next?
_Probably/likely/feasibly more instant, automatic personal attacks from you.
And on every other LNer who has become a thorn in your side
-----------------------
This is me
No, really
BetchaBetchaBetcha
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXrWJD6v/ali-foreman.png)
billchapman
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJF8zb4c/ORIGINAL-ALI-F0-REMAN-IN-KITCHEN.png)
billchapman
-
Oh, but I have. Much more than you will ever know.
_Guess I'll have to take you at your word, then
You on the other hand have only acquired the skill of lying.
_ I did not know that. You, on the other hand, seem born to it
First you falsely claim to be a succesfull artist, now you claim to having been a handwriting expert.
_Define what succesfull 'successful' means to you
What will be next?
_Probably/likely/feasibly more instant, automatic personal attacks from you.
And on every other LNer who has become a thorn in your side
-----------------------
This is me
No, really
BetchaBetchaBetcha
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXrWJD6v/ali-foreman.png)
billchapman
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJF8zb4c/ORIGINAL-ALI-F0-REMAN-IN-KITCHEN.png)
billchapman
This took you two hours to write? Really? I saw in your profile that you started "Posting in...." some 10 minutes after I have written my post. Go figure.
So desperate for recognition and continuously showing the same "evidence".... probably the only thing you've ever done before disappearing in total obscurity.
-
This took you two hours to write? Really? I saw in your profile that you started "Posting in...." some 10 minutes after I have written my post. Go figure.
So desperate for recognition and continuously showing the same "evidence".... probably the only thing you've ever done before disappearing in total obscurity.
OMG... now you're stalking me
-
OMG... now you're stalking me
Says the guy who started to respond to my post within 10 minutes after it was posted. :D
Get a life...
-
Says the guy who started to respond to my post within 10 minutes after it was posted. :D
Get a life...
Says the stalker who notices that I started to respond to his post within 10 minutes after it was posted.
Apparently this is your life
-
Says the stalker who notices that I started to respond to his post within 10 minutes after it was posted.
Apparently this is your life
It was easy to notice. Just after I had posted your name popped up at the "Users Currently Browsing This Topic:" section.
So, at that moment I knew you were on line, despite that fact that it was the middle of the night in Canada.
A short visit to your profile told me what you were doing.
You are boring me.
I'm having a far more interesting conversation with a toddler right now.
Get back to me when you have a life, a career and at least a little bit of credibility.
-
It was easy to notice. Just after I had posted your name popped up at the "Users Currently Browsing This Topic:" section.
So, at that moment I knew you were on line, despite that fact that it was the middle of the night in Canada.
A short visit to your profile told me what you were doing.
You are boring me.
I'm having a far more interesting conversation with a toddler right now.
Get back to me when you have a life, a career and at least a little bit of credibility.
OMG, there you are again, sitting there waiting for me to show up, all excited & giddy about your toddler equals and keeping track of Canadian time.
A short visit to your profile told me what you were doing.
_ A stalker is a stalker. No 'short visit' is going to get you off any stalker list
'You are boring me'
_Yet here you are.
Get back to me when you have a life, a career and at least a little bit of credibility.
_Says the stalker who claims to have skills but won't provide evidence
-
“Patton authenticators”. LOL.
“The money order”. LOL.
-
You dwell in hate
Oh... look at the poor "victim" whining.
-
Oh... look at the poor "victim" whining.
You and Herr Beck are the victims
Two heads are not better than one in CT DorkLand
It simply means you brainiacs are twice as stupid as we LNers thought
And when you go running to IacLOLetti, I score an easy Gordie Howe hat trick*
* A goal, an assist and a fight
Wait a minute.. I can't see any of you scoring anywhere, assisting anyone, or fighting anybody
Just what the hell are you nerds good for (OR AT) anyway? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
You and Herr Beck are the victims
Two heads are not better than one in CT DorkLand
It simply means you brainiacs are twice as stupid as we LNers thought
And when you go running to IacLOLetti, I score an easy Gordie Howe hat trick*
* A goal, an assist and a fight
Wait a minute.. I can't see any of you scoring anywhere, assisting anyone, or fighting anybody
Just what the hell are you nerds good for (OR AT) anyway? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It simply means you brainiacs are twice as stupid as we LNers thought
Stupid: Very slow of apprehension or understanding; mentally sluggish.... example:... a person who believes that fairy tales like the Warren Report are true.
-
You and Herr Beck are the victims
Two heads are not better than one in CT DorkLand
It simply means you brainiacs are twice as stupid as we LNers thought
And when you go running to IacLOLetti, I score an easy Gordie Howe hat trick*
* A goal, an assist and a fight
Wait a minute.. I can't see any of you scoring anywhere, assisting anyone, or fighting anybody
Just what the hell are you nerds good for (OR AT) anyway? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
as stupid as we LNers thought
LNers think?
You think LNers think? :D
Always with the insult
Pot meet kettle
-
as stupid as we LNers thought
LNers think?
You think LNers think? :D
Pot meet kettle
Pot meet kettle
Na, you laid 'whiner' on me
I responded
-
Ridiculous unsubstantiated claims made by clown boys deserve nothing other than a LOL.
-
Pot meet kettle
Na, you laid 'whiner' on me
I responded
Yes, with more whining and insults
Pot meet kettle
-
Ridiculous unsubstantiated claims made by clown boys deserve nothing other than a LOL.
Ridiculous unsubstantiated claims made by clown boys..
_Wow, you just branded CT DorkLand as a bunch of clowns. Good catch.
-
Ridiculous unsubstantiated claims made by clown boys deserve nothing other than a LOL.
'a LOL'
_an LOL
LOL
-
Depends on how you pronounce it, clown boy. Any other irrelevant remarks that you think are clever?
-
Depends on how you pronounce it, clown boy. Any other irrelevant remarks that you think are clever?
He thinks? Really?
-
He thinks? Really?
IacLOLetti
-
Depends on how you pronounce it, clown boy. Any other irrelevant remarks that you think are clever?
'an' LOL
> flows smoothly along, both spoken & written
'a' LOL
> Simply looks dumb in print
> when spoken, can create a speed bump or two
-
As usual, Chapman pretends to be an authority about something he doesn’t even understand.
Thanks again for another irrelevant contribution to the discussion though.
-
As usual, Chapman pretends to be an authority about something he doesn’t even understand.
Thanks again for another irrelevant contribution to the discussion though.
Can you ask a more targeted question? Exactly which 'something' are you whining about now?
-
Can you ask a more targeted question? Exactly which 'something' are you whining about now?
There was no question being asked at all, but I have one for you, now. Is this a good example of you not thinking?