Oswald's height as given in PS 44 records

[Mitchell Severson]

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

Fair point.

Rather than more posts, I should have stated more topics. Even if they don't generate that much interest, it's worthwhile exposure to a contrary point of view. I just don't have any interest in believing or repeating invalid arguments or shoddy evidence, whether they be Armstrong's, Lifton's, Lane's, Garrison's, or Parker's. In mainstream academia, you need to see other professionals confirm or refute the research of others. If some of the Armstrong evidence is hashed out here at DPF and a few supporting arguments from a thousand page book are thrown out, aren't we all the better for it?

[Bob Prudhomme]

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

Fair point.

Rather than more posts, I should have stated more topics. Even if they don't generate that much interest, it's worthwhile exposure to a contrary point of view. I just don't have any interest in believing or repeating invalid arguments or shoddy evidence, whether they be Armstrong's, Lifton's, Lane's, Garrison's, or Parker's. In mainstream academia, you need to see other professionals confirm or refute the research of others. If some of the Armstrong evidence is hashed out here at DPF and a few supporting arguments from a thousand page book are thrown out, aren't we all the better for it?

Absolutely, Mitchell. I was just making a joke when I enquired about generating more interest for my thread.

[Greg R Parker]

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

Fair point.

Rather than more posts, I should have stated more topics. Even if they don't generate that much interest, it's worthwhile exposure to a contrary point of view. I just don't have any interest in believing or repeating invalid arguments or shoddy evidence, whether they be Armstrong's, Lifton's, Lane's, Garrison's, or Parker's. In mainstream academia, you need to see other professionals confirm or refute the research of others. If some of the Armstrong evidence is hashed out here at DPF and a few supporting arguments from a thousand page book are thrown out, aren't we all the better for it?

The difference is Mitchell, I welcome and acknowledge errors. Even these threads will cause me to do some slight rewriting for any future editions of my book and If you go to my own forum, you can find posts where I have made addenda correcting errors.

I did come here in peace, though most definitely not prepared to take any crap, as has happened in previous attempts to engage on the H & L evidence. My first post should have signaled that. It was a polite request to help me understand certain terms used by David. For that, I was attacked by Hargrove and Joseph - and yes, I did hit back in kind. But while Bob whines about what I have said, he conveniently forgets what has been dished out to me here. Josephs went so far as to attack someone not even involved in this, simply because of his association with me. Anythony Thorne was attacked for the sin of trying to calm the waters.

The only time these people want to discuss the evidence is when they think they have found something to counter what I have. When they have nothing, they fall back into every underhanded debating tactic you can think of and then invent more. Since my first post, the whole focus has been on either getting me to lose my cool badly enough to get kicked off, or for me to simply leave.

[Greg R Parker]

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.

[Albert Doyle]

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.

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".

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?

[Greg R Parker]

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.

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".

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.

[Albert Doyle]

I don't know why, but to me it passes the 64 test. As history has shown, a lot of z grade movie stuff went on in the assassination.

[Greg R Parker]

I don't know why, but to me it passes the 64 test. As history has shown, a lot of z grade movie stuff went on in the assassination.

Cool. It passes with you. It doesn't with me simply because there is zero evidence he actually was 5'4" as a 12 year old - which as you yourself discovered, placed him in the 97th percentile in height for his age and sex. Put another way... he should have been taller than 97% of his peers. And he just flat out wasn't.

As for saying that a lot of z grade movie stuff did in fact go in the assassination... well what can I say? That's really how you explain something when you don't have a rational explanation.

[Albert Doyle]

Cool. It passes with you. It doesn't with me simply because there is zero evidence he actually was 5'4" as a 12 year old - which as you yourself discovered, placed him in the 97th percentile in height for his age and sex. Put another way... he should have been taller than 97% of his peers. And he just flat out wasn't.

As for saying that a lot of z grade movie stuff did in fact go in the assassination... well what can I say? That's really how you explain something when you don't have a rational explanation.

No, no, no, Mr Parker. You committed a logical violation there. You cannot mix an abstract reason with a physical one. The 64 is clearly a 64. What the reason is for that is separate from the fact it clearly says "64", though I agree it does raise interesting questions about how possible it was for Oswald to be 5 foot 4 at 12 years of age. I'm not sure exactly how to read that average height chart or how it relates to Oswald who was not in the upper percentile for average height but was instead slightly below it. Curious. Meanwhile Oswald's Marine record shows a height of 69 inches or 5 foot 9. That was supposedly at 17 years of age when he enlisted. Any chance this is evidence that another slightly older person was measured at PS 44?


Would the doctor or nurse who was practiced at taking these measurements on school boys make such a mistake?



Don't be coy Parker, the confirmed doubles in Dallas is z grade movie stuff and beyond.


.

[Greg R Parker]

Cool. It passes with you. It doesn't with me simply because there is zero evidence he actually was 5'4" as a 12 year old - which as you yourself discovered, placed him in the 97th percentile in height for his age and sex. Put another way... he should have been taller than 97% of his peers. And he just flat out wasn't.

As for saying that a lot of z grade movie stuff did in fact go in the assassination... well what can I say? That's really how you explain something when you don't have a rational explanation.

No, no, no, Mr Parker. You committed a logical violation there. You cannot mix an abstract reason with a physical one. The 64 is clearly a 64. What the reason is for that is separate from the fact it clearly says "64", though I agree it does raise interesting questions about how possible it was for Oswald to be 5 foot 4 at 12 years of age. I'm not sure exactly how to read that average height chart or how it relates to Oswald who was not in the upper percentile for average height but was instead slightly below it. Curious. Meanwhile Oswald's Marine record shows a height of 69 inches or 5 foot 9. That was supposedly at 17 years of age when he enlisted. Any chance this is evidence that another slightly older person was measured at PS 44?


Would the doctor or nurse who was practiced at taking these measurements on school boys make such a mistake?



Don't be coy Parker, the confirmed doubles in Dallas is z grade movie stuff and beyond.


.

I gave you the two most logical reasons for it, given the premise that it cannot possibly be right. That is, human error, or tampering with the document. You are trying to introduce a third possibility - a doppelganger - problem is that the doppelganger was supposed to be the short one. In any case, there is zero evidence of either the real, or alleged doppelganger ever being that height at that age. A taller Lee over the next couple of years is explicable through human physiology.

Whatever way you slice it - the document is incorrect.