The logical fallacy of the existing explanations of the electron double-slit experiment.

All existing analyses of the double-slit electron experiment are based on two statements:
1. When only one slit (hole) is open then electrons reach the screen and form a Bell-shaped pattern. 
2. When two slits are open, electrons form an interference pattern that does not represent a simple composition of two Bell-shaped patterns.
But all those existing analyses make the same logical mistake. 
They assume that when electrons travel through a single slit, they behave like classical particles.
However, there is absolutely no reason for that assumption.
An analogy with the light traveling through one or two slits (holes) shows that the pattern formed by electrons should depend on the size of the opening. 
When there is only one opening, but it is large (large enough, in a certain sense), then electrons will be forming a classical-like Bell-shaped pattern. But in this case, even with two openings, we should expect a classical-like pattern, and no interference.
But when the opening is small, electrons should form a single-slit interference pattern. When another opening becomes available, electrons form an interference pattern as well, but this should not be a surprise anymore, because electrons have already formed an interference pattern with only one opening.
And in that case the real question is why do electrons form an interference pattern when they travel through a single small opening?
All existing analyses of the double-slit electron experiment simply combine two incompatible pictures, the classical picture of particles traveling through one hole, and a quantum picture of particles traveling through two holes.
Of course, when you use an inconsistent logic, you get confusing results.
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov

This used to be an appendix to. Large piece on the matter:
“Can an electron travel through two slits at the same time?”, posted on this page.