I've seen enough evidence to prove that Klietmann made the Dead Eye PLM after WWII, most of which I've shared with you. True, I haven't shared this information in public. But I feel comfortable making the statement without qualification.
You have a good working theory and timeline and some very interesting circumstantial evidence (which I do appreciate your sharing and will of course protect), but that is still remote from becoming a statement of fact to be passed on. It makes as much sense as me saying "I've seen enough evidence to prove the Dead Eye PlMs were made in WWI, most of which I've shared with you, but not all of which has been shared in public," which you most certainly wouldn't swallow--nor would I expect you or anyone else to do so!
Put another way, were Dr. Kleitmann alive today (and regardless of whatever other mischief he is known to have indulged in), your allegation he did with certainty produce the Dead Eye PlM as a fake and sell them fraudulently would be capable of inciting a lawsuit for libel, if he took offense. Do you really feel the results of your investigation to date (leastways what you have shared with me) could establish the truth of your claim in a court of law? That is one way I would personally define certainty or a statement of fact. Enough circumstantial evidence might win such a case, but I don't think you got it yet, my friend, based on what you've shared here or with me personally. It would obviously be helpful if everyone could weigh the evidence.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying you are or must be wrong at all about this. I'm just not at all convinced you've proven Kleitmann made post-war Dead Eyes (or for that matter any of the other unique/particular pieces of evidence to which you are connecting them. He is logically a--maybe the--prime suspect for any post-war Godet fakes up until the time of his death, but I don't think you could get an indictment yet based on what you have.
Comment