Oswald's height as given in PS 44 records

[Bob Prudhomme]

I guess us Canadians are just a better breed. I was born in 1955 and I am 6'3" tall.

Amazing how much nutrition is in those pig snouts, eh?

[Albert Doyle]

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.

[Greg R Parker]

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.

[Greg R Parker]

Tonsils growing back is the exception.

Actually I have provided proof that tonsils taken from a 5 year old in 1945 would almost certainly grow back. NOT growing back would be the exception.

In sum, it is because back then, only a portion of the tonsils were removed - and they are still in a growth start until year 8.

Again - your exception is no exception at all. Smoke and mirrors prop this theory up.

[Don Jeffries]

Tonsils growing back is the exception.

Actually I have provided proof that tonsils taken from a 5 year old in 1945 would almost certainly grow back. NOT growing back would be the exception.

In sum, it is because back then, only a portion of the tonsils were removed - and they are still in a growth start until year 8.

Again - your exception is no exception at all. Smoke and mirrors prop this theory up.

You just will not admit you're ever wrong, and yet you insist that this is a trait of those who disagree with you. Classic projection. Here are a few links that will assure any unbiased person that tonsils growing back most definitely is the exception, as Albert stated.

http://doctorstevenpark.com/can-tonsils-...-removal-2
http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f...ectomy.htm
http://kidshealth.org/parent/question/ge...again.html
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/clini...grow-back-

I could have provided a lot more links, from doctors and nurses, testifying to the rarity of tonsils growing back, which when it occurs is a partial regrowth. What "proof" have you "provided" that tonsils taken from a 5 year old in 1945 "would almost certainly grow back?"

It really is ridiculous that we are arguing over whether tonsils can grow back, on a JFK assassination forum. But your refusal to admit you're wrong about something even as insignificant as this says a lot about your personality.

You accuse others of overlooking evidence and logic because of their blind adherence to Armstrong's theory. Here you are, completely misrepresenting minutiae like this, because of your adamant opposition to it.

[Albert Doyle]

Marguerite not understanding what's involved in a tonsillectomy would be an exception?

It's unlikely an osteopath would not explain to Marguerite that it was a non-surgical procedure that wasn't a tonsillectomy per say. Most mothers would want to know what exactly was being done to their child and most osteopaths would be glad to explain it. Most children would remember a tonsillectomy so it would then be likely the Marine Oswald would communicate to the doctors that he had already had his tonsils removed. Doctors are sticklers for medical statistics so they would be likely to record regrown tonsils.

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.

I think a forgery would be visible on the original if put to high tech testing. You are then left with a nurse who did this regularly making a 10 inch mistake. Are there any photos of Oswald standing from this time period that could be compared?

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.

If you look closely you have just made the same argument as Armstrong. Maybe it was just the kid they swapped in that day? All I'm saying is it was definitely a 64.

[Greg R Parker]

Tonsils growing back is the exception.

Actually I have provided proof that tonsils taken from a 5 year old in 1945 would almost certainly grow back. NOT growing back would be the exception.

In sum, it is because back then, only a portion of the tonsils were removed - and they are still in a growth start until year 8.

Again - your exception is no exception at all. Smoke and mirrors prop this theory up.

You just will not admit you're ever wrong, and yet you insist that this is a trait of those who disagree with you. Classic projection. Here are a few links that will assure any unbiased person that tonsils growing back most definitely is the exception, as Albert stated.

Hang on a second. Armstrong mocks the idea that LHO's tonsils grew back with his "were those medics hallucinating?" schtick, I come along and say... whoa there big fella... they can and do grow back - here's the proof... and that gets ignored every single time I have tried to bring to the attention of his supporters, and I'm the one who can't admit being wrong because you say they don't grow back as often as I say?
http://doctorstevenpark.com/can-tonsils-...-removal-2

Not even going to bother reading the others because the site above has message after message after message with people saying their tonsils grew back. You have helped make my case. Thank you.

http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f...ectomy.htm
http://kidshealth.org/parent/question/ge...again.html
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/clini...grow-back-

I could have provided a lot more links, from doctors and nurses, testifying to the rarity of tonsils growing back, which when it occurs is a partial regrowth. What "proof" have you "provided" that tonsils taken from a 5 year old in 1945 "would almost certainly grow back?"

Here is what I based my opinion on:

Question: Can Your Tonsils Grow Back After a Tonsillectomy?
Answer:
Both tonsil and adenoid tissue has the ability to regenerate if it is not completely removed during surgery. Even a very tiny amount of tissue can cause them to grow back. However, this isn't a common occurrence.


There are certain factors that may make your tonsils more likely to grow back, such as if they are removed before the period of time when they would normally be growing has passed. Under normal circumstances, tonsils and adenoids tend to grow at a fairly steady rate until a person is about 8 years of age. At this point, they begin to shrink. Adenoids pretty much disappear by adulthood. Understanding how the tonsils and adenoids normally function and grow may help you determine if your tonsils are likely to grow back or not.


Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size.


If you had your adenoids removed at the same time as your tonsils, it is more likely that they will grow back than your tonsils. While I have cared for patients who are having a second adenoidectomy, I have never cared for someone, or even known someone, who has had to have their tonsils removed more than once in a lifetime. If you know someone whose tonsils have grown back, they probably had their tonsils removed many years ago. There was a period of time when the method used to remove the tonsils made it more likely for them to grow back. This method, which involved leaving the outer portion of the tonsils intact in order to reduce pain and decrease the risk of bleeding, is no longer used.
http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f...ectomy.htm

So there are a combination of factors in regard to Oswald:

1. He had his tonsillectomy at an age when the tonsils were not fully developed and
2. He had it done under a procedure no longer used which was to only partially remove the organ.

Those factors in combination made it exponentially more likely for Oswald's to grow back.

It really is ridiculous that we are arguing over whether tonsils can grow back, on a JFK assassination forum. But your refusal to admit you're wrong about something even as insignificant as this says a lot about your personality.

I agree it is ridiculous. If Armstrong and his supporters had listened to me when I first brought it to their attention, I would not have to keep bringing it up. They ARE aware of it because it is now missing from the new website BUT it is still in the book and there is no explanation on the website acknowledging the error.

You accuse others of overlooking evidence and logic because of their blind adherence to Armstrong's theory. Here you are, completely misrepresenting minutiae like this, because of your adamant opposition to it.

I haven't misrepresented anything, Don. Your determination to misrepresent the facts about every post I make shows what sort of person you are.

The real bottom line is this: Armstrong never had a clue if tonsils could grow back or not and never bothered to try and find out. He made an assumption and ran with it because the assumption suited his thesis.

[Greg R Parker]

[quote=Greg R Parker]

If you look closely you have just made the same argument as Armstrong.

If you go up to a truck driver and put your ear to his belly and listen real close, you can here him say "what the F*%& are you doing?"

[Albert Doyle]

Not even going to bother reading the others because the site above has message after message after message with people saying their tonsils grew back. You have helped make my case. Thank you.

It's getting a little swampy in here. Read a little closer Greg. A large percentage say they either partially grew back or only grew back on one side. And you were the one mocking the notion of being able to tell the difference between regrown and original. What Don's post shows is that these people were very vocal about their tonsils regrowing. Read the comments. So why then is there no such indication with Oswald?

[Jim Hargrove]

The real bottom line is this: Armstrong never had a clue if tonsils could grow back or and never bothered to try and find out. He made an assumption and ran with it because the assumption suited his thesis.

From Harvey and Lee, page 37:

In 1945 a tonsillectomy was as routine an operation as it is

today. It is performed by anesthetizing the patient, propping the mouth open, depress-

ing the tongue, grasping the tonsils with a tenaculum, and then cutting out the tonsils.

The patient is then allowed to awake naturally from anesthesia. The operation is nearly

100% successful and only in extremely rare cases do tonsils re-appear. If and when ton-

sils do re-appear, they grow only to no more than 10% of their original size--not large

enough to require removal.

Why do you continually and inaccurately attack John Armstrong, and then when whine like a child when supporter's of John's research attack you--by telling you the facts? Why don't you read the book to avoid your embarrassments? Would you like me to create a post that summarizes the many erroneous attacks you have made on John Armstrong here so far that are completely undone by Harvey and Lee?

Jim