Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Lechmere]

In the original record from Stone at the LAM every height of every patient Is given in feet and inches. A couple of patients have no height recorded. Virtually every patient had regular updates on their weight.
For Evans/Fleming - as for pretty much all the patients, The updates or reports on his health and well being can be found on the page facing his admission details - ie the details that contain his height and initial weight.
The updates are in several different hands.
the staff who updated his entry thus would have been able to see his given height every time they amended and added to his record. Several different members of staff had the opportunity to correct his height if it was wrong.
I willpower an image if I can later.
my conclusion is that the height record is likely to be accurate.

[DVV]

The giant who went unnoticed

One inch more than the Lincolnshire giant, five stones less.
All is fine.
My conclusion ?
Bob is not your uncle.

[Lechmere]

I typed that garbled post on my phone while looking at the asylum record for Evans/Fleming.
I will post a picture of the relevant page from the original record a bit later on - and you can decide on your Uncle's name.

[DVV]

Very well.
Posting the picture will prove the height to be accurate ?
Ok.
Then there really was a 55ft tall soldier in the army.

[Lechmere]

DVD
errors in some types of records are more likely to be spotted and corrected than in others.
I am not expecting your faith in Evans/Fleming"s height to be shaken, as it is a matter of faith.

[DVV]

DVD
errors in some types of records are more likely to be spotted and corrected than in others.
I am not expecting your faith in Evans/Fleming"s height to be shaken, as it is a matter of faith.

You can say it, but who would believe you ?

Ben, Debra and I have pointed out conclusive evidence that such a freakish height and thinness is most probably a mistake, not to say a nonsense.

[C. F. Leon]

One thing that often confuses me with this subject is the odd British measurements without conversion information. I fully understand the metric system, but some of these earlier measurements leave me at a loss. Just how many pounds is "11 stone"?

(And I won't even mention the LVP monetary system...)

[Lechmere]

14 pounds in a stone

[Lechmere]

The Evans/Fleming record at Stone

[Observer]

Hi Lechmere

Hard to make out the entries in the book, but halfway down on the left hand page does it say

"Had to make use of step-ladder to give patient medication"

Regards

Observer

[DVV]

Thanks

[Fisherman]

You can say it, but who would believe you ?

Ben, Debra and I have pointed out conclusive evidence that such a freakish height and thinness is most probably a mistake, not to say a nonsense.

So, conclusive, iron-clad evidence that you just may be right ...? Or wrong?

I see. Congrats.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Oh, I guess I'm right, Fish.

His weight doesn't fit at all.

He would have been one inch taller than an exhibited giant, and 5 stone lighter.

Mary would have known that freak for 3 years, and nothing would have leaked out.

And not a single word from the medics about this height and thinness. Even when his weight decreased, they didn't care.

Case closed.

Since you're fond of BMI, have you noted that a 5'7 Fleming and the Lincolnshire giant would have had the same BMI ? Around 24-25, which is "normal / healthy" category, or very slightly overweight.

All the best

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

I once dated a man who was 6'9"--and yes, he did get noticed! Especially considering that I am only a little over 5' myself (5'2" or 5'3"), we must have made a very odd-looking couple!!! I don't know what his weight was but proportional to that (amazing) height--maybe a bit on the thin side, however much that would be!

I also dated a man who stood 6'3", exactly a foot taller than myself. He could never get used to being one of the "shorter" men I dated, haha!

I dunno...just realized I seem to have a "thing" for really tall men!

[Fisherman]

DVV: Oh, I guess I'm right, Fish.

No, David, not at all - you donīt "guess" you are right. You claim that you have conclusive evidence to prove that you may be right.

Which is a lot funnier.

Of course, you have no conclusive evidence at all. You have the statistics telling you that very tall men are less normal than normally tall men, and that thin men are less normal than normal-weight men.

Bravo.

What I have is a record from Stone asylum that tells us that Fleming was 6 ft 7 and lots of examples of people who are as thin and a good deal thinner than the asylum man, and who still seem to be of excellent bodily health. I also have a Yorkshireman that lived in 1891 and who was 7 ft 6, effectively blowing the myth that Englandīs tallest man was a mere 6 ft 6 way out of the water. So on that score, at least, there IS conclusive proof that you were wrong.

Since you're fond of BMI, have you noted that a 5'7 Fleming and the Lincolnshire giant would have had the same BMI ? Around 24-25, which is "normal / healthy" category, or very slightly overweight.

So what are you suggesting this tells us? That all tall men always answer to a BMI of 24-25?
I would have thought that short people, normal people, tall people, Hutchinsonians, bearhunters, Playboy bunnies and one-legged pirates all have VARYING body types and BMI:s.

If you can find conclusive evidence that tall people all range between 24 and 25 BMI-wise, I will surrender and proclaim you the winner of this issue however. And since you are as close to conclusive evidence in this matter as you are on the main topic, why donīt you give it a go?

Fisherman
amused