30-03-2014, 02:21 AM
Albert Doyle Wrote:Greg R Parker Wrote: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.
Look at the MFF copy. It is full of misprinted voids throughout. Then look at David's copy, there are no such voids. The simple explanation is that the "6" in the MFF version has a random misprint void you are not comprehending. It's a 64 Greg, as David's copy shows.
Quote:Your insistence that there is nothing wrong with David's copy is noted. Can you explain how you know that as a fact?
Compare them yourself. Especially up by the upper right corner where it says "HEALTH CARD".
Quote: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?
Could it be Armstrong was correct?
Albert, even if I conceded that the form says "64" (which I don't... but for the sake of argument, let's say I do...), that does not automatically equate to Armstrong being correct about 2 Oswald's with one being a VERY noticeably tall 12 year old.
The fact is, he was not in the top 3% tallest for his age and sex in the US.
That leaves only two possibilities that I can think of. Someone has tampered with the document David relies upon - or if the document has not been tampered with, then the person who completed it got it wrong.
Was Oswald taller than 4' 6" in the immediate years following? Sure he was. It's called pubescent growth spurts.
My whole point in these threads, Albert, is that seeming anomalies in these records are either not anomalies at all (e'g. the tonsils issue, since they can in fact grow back without being "magic") or else can be explained in rational ways that do not necessitate imaginative scenarios purloined from z grade movies.