Oswald's height as given in PS 44 records

[Albert Doyle]

Whatever way you slice it - the document is incorrect.

Funny how that seems to appear over and over again with "Oswald" isn't it?


Who would tamper with the document, when, and why?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Albert, I was well over 5'4" when I was 12 years old, as were several of my friends.

[Greg R Parker]

Whatever way you slice it - the document is incorrect.

Funny how that seems to appear over and over again with "Oswald" isn't it?


Who would tamper with the document, when, and why?

Someone with a theory to push?

But really, it doesn't matter - unless you can provide evidence that a kid - the real LHO or one merely purporting to be him - was actually 5' 4" at 12, it is case closed - the document is wrong. You can come up with your own solution if you want, but without corroborating evidence, but much evidence to to the contrary, I'm not sure you'll be all that successful.

[Greg R Parker]

Albert, I was well over 5'4" when I was 12 years old, as were several of my friends.

Did you or any of your friends go to PS 44 in 1953 using the name Lee Harvey Oswald? If not, what relevance does it have?

That you and your friends were in the top 97 percentile is interesting, but totally irrelevant. I'm sure those in the 3% percentile tended to hang out together too.

[Greg R Parker]

Whatever way you slice it - the document is incorrect.

Funny how that seems to appear over and over again with "Oswald" isn't it?


Who would tamper with the document, when, and why?

Happens over and over again according to some. And in every other case, the tampering is said to HIDE the "two Oswald theory" -- not tampering to SUPPORT it.

sheesh.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Albert, I was well over 5'4" when I was 12 years old, as were several of my friends.

Did you or any of your friends go to PS 44 in 1953 using the name Lee Harvey Oswald? If not, what relevance does it have?

That you and your friends were in the top 97 percentile is interesting, but totally irrelevant. I'm sure those in the 3% percentile tended to hang out together too.

Perhaps your source for the top 97 percentile's height is mistaken. Ever consider that?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Besides, this is North America, not Australia. We feed kids real food here, not Vegemite and tea biscuits.

[Greg R Parker]

Albert, I was well over 5'4" when I was 12 years old, as were several of my friends.

Did you or any of your friends go to PS 44 in 1953 using the name Lee Harvey Oswald? If not, what relevance does it have?

That you and your friends were in the top 97 percentile is interesting, but totally irrelevant. I'm sure those in the 3% percentile tended to hang out together too.

Perhaps your source for the top 97 percentile's height is mistaken. Ever consider that?

It wasn't my source. Ir was supplied by Albert... who last I saw was on your side of the debate.

[Greg R Parker]

Besides, this is North America, not Australia. We feed kids real food here, not Vegemite and tea biscuits.

LOL yeah... all those deep fried pig snouts and fries really do make you grow. Just not vertically.

[Greg R Parker]

Here is a height chart specific to Australia. It basically reflects the same info that Albert pointed to. A 12 year old boy who is 5' 4" (164 and bit centimeters) would be in the 97-98 percentile.
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Document...y18yrs.pdf
What also has to be considered is that average heights - as with average weights and life expectancy have all increased since the 1950s... so it was more likely he was actually in the 198-199 percentile (if the figure was accurate).