The Great Oswald Height Debate

The Great Oz Height Debate is now in full swing. Who wins?

There are 3 documented heights for Oswald, 5' 9", 5' 9 1/2" and 5' 11".  H & L reseller, Jim Hargrove was only aware of the first and third heights and has claimed they are further proof of two different individuals. 

As Tommy San suggests however, if these two were supposed to be merged in the records as one individual and efforts (as claimed by Hargrove) were made to merge school records - why was nothing done to merge physical descriptions in records? 

The simpler and saner explanation is that where the record shows height as 5' 11", it is an estimate by someone else, or an an exaggeration by Oswald. Certainly - and again as stated by Tommy San, getting the height right on entry into the military is important. Who cares though, what it is listed at upon exit? 

But the major point is that neither side completely wins. Once again, it is science that wins. People not only grow when they are young and start to shrink once past a certain age, we all also grow and shrink quite a bit during each and every day. So even the time of day is a factor.



Science wins on height
Science wins on regrowth of tonsils
Science wins.

Armstrong has simply used every crackpot and well-meaning "witness" who came forward after the assassination with stories of impossible Oswald sightings. He used the mistaken memory of people who did actually meet Oswald but got the time-frames wrong. He exploited clerical errors like such errors never occur in the real world and therefore aren't errors at all (according to Armstrong). He has used misinterpretation of school records. He has used much sleight of hand and massaging of witnesses to come up with a 2nd Marguerite to accompany his second Oswald because even Doppelganger's need a mum.  He has come up with a very shiny turd. But it only stinks if he you prod it. Some people are just content to be kept warm in its glow.

Science wins.
Common sense wins.
Correct interpretations win.

But we all lose while floaters like this go unflushed.

I've spent the last 10 minutes checking my height to make sure I'm as accurate as I can be using both a tape rule and a yardstick. I took so much time because I kept thinking I was getting an erroneous result. But the average of all my measurements turned out to be 70 7/8 inches (± 1/8 in.). 

When I was young and in the Navy, my height was 6 feet (72 inches). I always figured I'd shrunk some over the years, but I thought I'd be a little closer to 72 inches than I'm currently coming up with.

What I'm saying here is that old Stan is shorter than young Stan. Same Stan, however.

The best part for Armstrong is he doesn't need to polish. Just produce. Hargrove and his sponges does the rest.

I'm 6 foot 2 inches. With shoes I've been 6 foot 3 and a bit and have been measured at 6 ft 4 with boots on. The height argument and variances those culties offer are negligible. If they are using it as major evidence then they have very little else to offer.