Oswald's height as given in PS 44 records

[Bob Prudhomme]

[quote=David Josephs]Is this man for real anymore? Having known Greg in the past I am now alarmed that someone else, who is NOT Greg Parker, is now posting in his place.... Even he is not known for mistakes of this level...

Someone ought to warn him about this... I suggest we put a hold on anymore posting from whoever it is that claims to be Greg until he is made aware of this...


[ATTACH=CONFIG]5834[/ATTACH]

Where did you obtain


[ATTACH=CONFIG]5833[/ATTACH][/QUOTE


Where did you obtain this, David?

Here is what MFF has
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...elPageId=8

So according to you, he shrank from 67[SUP]1/2" to 64"?
[/SUP]
For the record, I think the first figure is either 51 [SUP]1/2" [/SUP]or 53[SUP]1/2[/SUP]"

So, you're saying he grew 10.5-12.5" in 4 months? What was she feeding that kid?

I have been assured that people here are intelligent.

51 [SUP]1/2" [/SUP]or 53[SUP]1/2 to 54" [/SUP]is a growth of 1/2" to 2[SUP]1/2[/SUP]" when I went to school. Obviously the lower amount is the most probable.

Are you not curious about David's document which indicates he actually shrunk?

You know, I swore I wasn't going to answer another one of your moronic posts but, you, my friend, are literally begging for a good ass kicking. I'll bet you had your ass kicked on a regular basis in school, didn't you.

Okay, for starters, I don't care what backward part of this planet you come from, that number on the right is unquestionably a "64". If you think otherwise, you are likely on some serious drugs and should seek counselling for your addiction. The other number is possibly up for debate but, to my eyes, it appears it would be "67.25".

Yes, this would mean that he shrunk 2.75 inches in four months but, have you never heard of someone making a typographical error? A typo is far more likely than your explanation which would, as I stated, have the child growing 10.5-12.5 inches in four months.

[Greg R Parker]

[quote=Greg R Parker]

So, you're saying he grew 10.5-12.5" in 4 months? What was she feeding that kid?

I have been assured that people here are intelligent.

51 [SUP]1/2" [/SUP]or 53[SUP]1/2 to 54" [/SUP]is a growth of 1/2" to 2[SUP]1/2[/SUP]" when I went to school. Obviously the lower amount is the most probable.

Are you not curious about David's document which indicates he actually shrunk?

You know, I swore I wasn't going to answer another one of your moronic posts but, you, my friend, are literally begging for a good ass kicking. I'll bet you had your ass kicked on a regular basis in school, didn't you.

Okay, for starters, I don't care what backward part of this planet you come from, that number on the right is unquestionably a "64". If you think otherwise, you are likely on some serious drugs and should seek counselling for your addiction. The other number is possibly up for debate but, to my eyes, it appears it would be "67.25".

Yes, this would mean that he shrunk 2.75 inches in four months but, have you never heard of someone making a typographical error? A typo is far more likely than your explanation which would, as I stated, have the child growing 10.5-12.5 inches in four months.

Flamfest alert above!

I already told you what I read both figures to be - which shows a slight growth over the period.

Um. Typos happen... when typing (as astounding as that may seem)... this is handwritten.

That you prefer to read the form David has posted (and in which I actually totally agree shows the numbers you say) is your concern. It appears to be doctored to me.

To believe it, you also have to believe that as a 12 year old, Oswald was in the TOP 3% tallest boys of that age in the US. Clearly he was not. Nor does his known adult height suggest he was ever in the top 3%.

You may be kicking... but what you are scoring is known in soccer as an "own goal".

[Albert Doyle]

Compare David's sharp copy to Mary Ferrell's bad facsimile. Greg's copy is a bad copy that missed part of the 6.


It's clearly 64.

[Greg R Parker]

Compare David's sharp copy to Mary Ferrell's bad facsimile. Greg's copy is a bad copy that missed part of the 6.


It's clearly 64.

Funny. I could have sworn I said I agree is says "64".

But that doesn't mean it is a pristine original copy.

Kids in the top 3% in height at age 12 generally will grow up to be above average height, if not very much so.

Also, you need to decide what that first figure is because a "typo" just doesn't cut it and no number you could say it resembles makes sense alongside your 64.

[Albert Doyle]

Funny. I could have sworn I said I agree is says "64".

So Armstrong was correct. You seem not to be very apologetic for a person who busted badly.


The first figure is also 64 and whatever fraction followed.

[Greg R Parker]

Funny. I could have sworn I said I agree is says "64".

So Armstrong was correct. You seem not to be very apologetic for a person who busted badly.



The first figure is also 64 and whatever fraction followed.

Yeah. You're a riot, Albert. Is this what passes muster her? Taking quotes out of context is encouraged here?

Here's the full quote.

Funny. I could have sworn I said I agree is says "64".

But that doesn't mean it is a pristine original copy.

Kids in the top 3% in height at age 12 generally will grow up to be above average height, if not very much so.

Also, you need to decide what that first figure is because a "typo" just doesn't cut it and no number you could say it resembles makes sense alongside your 64.

Your "64" for the first one is pulled out of where? The second number looks nothing like a "4". Try again.

[Mitchell Severson]

I'm glad Greg Parker is posting here at DPF as I think his posts here and back at the EF have value. That's more than I can say for mine and those of 9/10 people at these types of forums. New research, new arguments and more posts are good things.

However, the responses to his posts are highlighting one of the reasons I rarely post here: it seems that you are considered less than a full member (or human being) if you disagree with either the wound alteration hypothesis or the Harvey and Lee hypothesis. To many observers, that would appear immature and counterproductive. There seemed to be pre-existing bad blood between Mr. Parker and the two most vocal supporters of Mr. Armstrong's book and I take that into consideration. But, I'm seeing pretty much the same reaction to him that I've seen to those of us that are not willing to sign on to the Lifton/Horne school of thought as well. If there are people that disagree with you, convince them. If someone cannot be convinced, just leave their posts unanswered.

And, if you really think it's more than a matter of disagreeing parties, that there is an ulterior motive, I'm sure the moderators can deal with that. Accusing someone like a Parker or Speer of something untoward, merely for doing their own research and their own thinking is a surefire way for the critical community to self-destruct.

I'm not interested in that happening.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I'm glad Greg Parker is posting here at DPF as I think his posts here and back at the EF have value. That's more than I can say for mine and those of 9/10 people at these types of forums. New research, new arguments and more posts are good things.

However, the responses to his posts are highlighting one of the reasons I rarely post here: it seems that you are considered less than a full member (or human being) if you disagree with either the wound alteration hypothesis or the Harvey and Lee hypothesis. To many observers, that would appear immature and counterproductive. There seemed to be pre-existing bad blood between Mr. Parker and the two most vocal supporters of Mr. Armstrong's book and I take that into consideration. But, I'm seeing pretty much the same reaction to him that I've seen to those of us that are not willing to sign on to the Lifton/Horne school of thought as well. If there are people that disagree with you, convince them. If someone cannot be convinced, just leave their posts unanswered.

And, if you really think it's more than a matter of disagreeing parties, that there is an ulterior motive, I'm sure the moderators can deal with that. Accusing someone like a Parker or Speer of something untoward, merely for doing their own research and their own thinking is a surefire way for the critical community to self-destruct.

I'm not interested in that happening.

It's amazing how many responses Mr. Parker generates, regardless of what the responders' beliefs are. Personally, I'm still far from convinced of this whole Lee/Harvey business, yet here I am writing just as many replies as David Josephs.

And then compare that to my newest thread in which I basically destroy any belief the 6.5mm Carcano could have killed JFK. I get only three responses, from you and Marc Ellis, for which, of course, I am grateful for your interest. I look at this forum and other forums and the topics discussed here and it seems JFK research has lost relevance.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Would it generate more interest in my thread if I called people morons and inbreds and offered to eviscerate people?

[Albert Doyle]

Mr Parker isn't being honest. It's clearly 64 and he hasn't admitted or accounted for his mistake. If it is 64, as Parker admits, then Armstrong is correct and Parker's wasting our time. There's nothing wrong with David's copy.