28-03-2014, 12:40 PM
Interesting replies people. I've had 2 moderator warnings for calling a comment (as opposed to a person) moronic.
Yet it seems to be Open Season on this little black duck. Any comment is a-ok with your friendly mods, so long as they are aimed at, and coming froml... me.
Where's Elmer Fudd when you need him?
But all these remarks do serve a purpose - they divert from the EVIDENCE I posted showing that the reliance on Pic's memory for Ekdahl's height was a bad call.
Given shrinkage with age, I'd say he was no more than about 5' 9 [SUP][SUB]1/2"[/SUB][/SUP] to 5' 10" in that wedding photo. And since it was her wedding photo, I'd say Marguerite was probably wearing heels - unlike later in life where her work as a practical nurse would mean flats. She of course, would also have shrunk by the time of those latter photos.
When it is looked at scientifically, instead of through the smoke and mirrors Armstrong deploys to sell his wares, there are NO discrepancies at all.
Yet it seems to be Open Season on this little black duck. Any comment is a-ok with your friendly mods, so long as they are aimed at, and coming froml... me.
Where's Elmer Fudd when you need him?
But all these remarks do serve a purpose - they divert from the EVIDENCE I posted showing that the reliance on Pic's memory for Ekdahl's height was a bad call.
Given shrinkage with age, I'd say he was no more than about 5' 9 [SUP][SUB]1/2"[/SUB][/SUP] to 5' 10" in that wedding photo. And since it was her wedding photo, I'd say Marguerite was probably wearing heels - unlike later in life where her work as a practical nurse would mean flats. She of course, would also have shrunk by the time of those latter photos.
When it is looked at scientifically, instead of through the smoke and mirrors Armstrong deploys to sell his wares, there are NO discrepancies at all.