30-03-2014, 12:57 AM
Albert Doyle Wrote: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.
That's called a false dichotomy Albert.
The copy at MFF cannot possibly be read as "64". That you say that the copy used is simply missing part of the "6" makes it an awfully convenient flaw in the copy.
Your insistence that there is nothing wrong with David's copy is noted. Can you explain how you know that as a fact?
And you are yet to address how Oswald could have been in the top 3% tallest 12 year old boys in the US. Do you really, honestly believe he was?
Funny how, when the MFF version is read as "54"... (4' 6"), it matches in with his height as given by others.