31-03-2014, 01:10 AM
Albert Doyle Wrote:I think a handwriting expert could see if the 64 is forged or lines up with the rest of the handwriting on the document. Greg is saying it's either mistaken or forged, but a mistake is unlikely for a nurse who does this regularly and a forgery is the exception. Marguerite getting the definition of tonsillectomy wrong is the exception. Tonsils growing back is the exception.
Marguerite not understanding what's involved in a tonsillectomy would be an exception?
One of your own, right here in this fountain of enlightenment, thought tonsils were removed through an incision in the throat!
You are also assuming that Marguerite was present for whatever procedure was done. How many surgeons allow a parent to be present during the operation of a child?
As for the form -- your way of looking at is the exact opposite of mine. You say the form must be correct - after commenting about how many times these forms AREN'T correct - and want to miss connecting 50,000 dots and go straight from a 53 school report to false Oswald sightings 10 years later.
Your logic seems to be, if the paperwork doesn't match the H & L theory, it is faked. If it does match the H & L theory, it is correct. And that is the pervasive practive among H & L supporters.
My way of looking at it is, if all the evidence suggests Oswald was not 5' 4" in 1953 EXCEPT this form - them the form HAS to be wrong. How it came to be wrong is a separate matter.