I just want to try to frame this one last time for Michael in hopefully a polite manner I was a philosophy major bit Don't really know if it has bearing on this issue. It is reasonable to have a operative a priori understandings For instance gravity, the speed of light are a kind of a priori understanding that are useful obviously the investigation of phenomenon where they come into play so if someone has a theory, or supposed evidence, which they claim shows anomalies or contradictions of those laws there is every reason to be either skeptical or completely dismissive However from a scientific perspective all claims deserve a test. It is obviously not practical to test every wild eyed claim, but the investigatory necessity, technically, trumps all established dogma in a purely empirical sense
So it is not necessarily wrong to have an a priori notion that some things are just out of the range of possibility, such as two Oswald's, but it is technically not a approach consistent with empiricism. I do feel however that you do have some responsibility to specify which of these perspectives you are drawing from in your continued efforts of self congratulatory ridicule of those wiling to consider the issue