Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Michael Hogan]

I repeat:

Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

Anyone reading the whole email from which you are extracting a quote would

see that the "unauthorized book" was not Haslam's but Livingstone's. Do you

and Barb think that, by posting reinforcing comments, you can put one over on

the members of this thread? I invite anyone to go back to Hogan's earlier post

about this and read it through for themselves. It is very clear (by the time that

you reach the end of the email) that she was talking about Livingstone's book,

not Ed's. This is a nice example of the shoddy efforts being expended by those

who fear that Judyth's story may be taken seriously, which it certainly should be.

In fact, I have made this point (about the book under consideration) previously.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If you didn't mean to imply it was Haslam's, I don't see the point of the post.

And from reading it through, it is apparent that it was not Haslam's book but

Livingstone's to which she was making reference. And now you compound it

with repetitive posts about a post that seems to have had no useful purpose?

My confidence in your scholarly ability has been further corroded. Not only

do you misrepresent my remarks about Ed Haslam's book but you appear to

be going out of your way to try to make mountains out of molehills. Is that

what you are doing here? Because that is the pattern that is now emerging.

I repeat:

Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

Anyone reading the whole email from which you are extracting a quote would

see that the "unauthorized book" was not Haslam's but Livingstone's. Do you

and Barb think that, by posting reinforcing comments, you can put one over on

the members of this thread? I invite anyone to go back to Hogan's earlier post

about this and read it through for themselves. It is very clear (by the time that

you reach the end of the email) that she was talking about Livingstone's book,

not Ed's. This is a nice example of the shoddy efforts being expended by those

who fear that Judyth's story may be taken seriously, which it certainly should be.

In fact, I have made this point (about the book under consideration) previously.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

All,

Everyone has been looking at and discussing 4 post-mortem photographs of LHO without putting them into their proper chronological context (i.e., when they were taken in relation to each other) which may be very important in analyzing their content.

I’ll try and do that here.

For the sake of the discussion I’ll identify the photos as follows:

1. The COLOR autopsy photos, specifically the one of LHO’s penis, which we’ll call LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS. My understanding is that this one photograph out of a series of autopsy photographs taken either by the Dallas County Medical examiner or an FBI agent who was present during the autopsy.

2. The two BW photos of LHO in the morgue, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW 1 and LHO MORGUE BW2. They are quite obviously sequential photographs taken by the same cameraman/camera.

3. The one BW photo of LHO in the morgue with the towel over his lower body, taken by the Dallas Police Department, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW3-DPD. We know this is a DPD photograph because it is s photo is present in the DPD files and appeared in both Curry’s book JFK Assassination File and Judy Bonner’s book Investigation of a homicide, both of which relied heavily on DPD photographs.

After examining the photographs carefully and looking at all of the “clues” within the photographs, here’s the sequence in which I believe that they must have been taken and what each one shows.

PRE-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS

penis points to right

gunshot entry wound NOT excised

other autopsy photos from this time show that the gunshot entry wound is NOT excised, that there appears to be no Y-incision, and that the sutures are similar to LHO MORGUE BW 1 and 2 below

PRE-AUTOPSY BUT AFTER GUN SHOT WOUND HAS BEEN EXCISED

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 1

2 men in scene

penis points downward

left hand is touching the body

gunshot entry wound is excised

possibly no Y-incision on right

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 2

6 men in scene (two of same men from above)

penis points to right

left hand away from body

gunshot entry wound is excised

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

POST-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 3 - DPD

gunshot entry wound is excised

complete Y-incision

trimmed and tightened sutures that appear significantly different from all of the above photos

rib cage looks like ribs have been cut

abdomen looks sunken

I’ll be interested to see what comments and analysis this draws

Todd

Monk,

I am a bit taken aback that you and Michael Hogan should confound

(1) evaluating the truth of Judyth's story with (2) the humanizing of

Oswald that her story represents. This is not a subtle distinction and

I am really surprised you are failing to acknowledge it. Some of her

critics, especially Barb Junkkarinen, have been going after Judyth on

the ground that she has purportedly been inconsistent about whether

or not the man she knew was circumcised. No less an eminence than

Doug Weldon has declared that this was the coup de grace for taking

her story seriously. This has been brewing for some time, but I only

find you raising these protests after attempts are made to resolve it.

What is most interesting here is that the evidence suggests that Lee

was partially rather than completely circumcised. Even Jack has said

that he appeared to be uncircumcised when viewing one of the black-

and-whites, with which I agree. If he was only partially circumcised,

however, then the question, "Was he circumcised?", has no definite

answer. I am going to presume that you are reading the posts in which

I have addressed this question, which I have now done several times.

What this means is that it is ambiguous and has more than one truthful

answer, where Judyth's integrity is not at stake even if she answered it

differently on different occasions. Jack or I might both answer similarly.

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Greg Burnham is 100% correct.

[Michael Hogan]

You should be able to answer this question without

attempting to deflect it:

Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

It is you that made the charge that it was I that made a blunder.

I never implied that it was Haslam's. Yet you continued to

repetitively make this false claim.

It is not a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Believe me,

I am prepared to show that is not the case.

I am not going to let you spread falsehoods about what I have written and then

try to avoid acknowledging it is you that is wrong.

You have stated in the past if you are shown to be wrong, you will admit it and

correct it. We will see.

If you didn't mean to imply it was Haslam's, I don't see the point of the post.

And from reading it through, it is apparent that it was not Haslam's book but

Livingstone's to which she was making reference. And now you compound it

with repetitive posts about a post that seems to have had no useful purpose?

My confidence in your scholarly ability has been further corroded. Not only

do you misrepresent my remarks about Ed Haslam's book but you appear to

be going out of your way to try to make mountains out of molehills. Is that

what you are doing here? Because that is the pattern that is now emerging.

I repeat:

Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

Anyone reading the whole email from which you are extracting a quote would

see that the "unauthorized book" was not Haslam's but Livingstone's. Do you

and Barb think that, by posting reinforcing comments, you can put one over on

the members of this thread? I invite anyone to go back to Hogan's earlier post

about this and read it through for themselves. It is very clear (by the time that

you reach the end of the email) that she was talking about Livingstone's book,

not Ed's. This is a nice example of the shoddy efforts being expended by those

who fear that Judyth's story may be taken seriously, which it certainly should be.

In fact, I have made this point (about the book under consideration) previously.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What is the point of your post is that wasn't it? I cannot see any other.

And you can set a sterling example by acknowledging that you have

seriously misrepresented my characterization of DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

as I have pointed out to you several times now. You are just a bit on

the tardy side when it comes to admitting your own "false claims", so

I am prepared to be highly unimpressed with more coming from you.

You should be able to answer this question without

attempting to deflect it:

Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

It is you that made the charge that it was I that made a blunder.

I never implied that it was Haslam's. Yet you continued to

repetitively make this false claim.

It is not a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Believe me,

I am prepared to show that is not the case.

I am not going to let you spread falsehoods about what I have written and then

try to avoid acknowledging it is you that is wrong.

You have stated in the past if you are shown to be wrong, you will admit it and

correct it. We will see.

If you didn't mean to imply it was Haslam's, I don't see the point of the post.

And from reading it through, it is apparent that it was not Haslam's book but

Livingstone's to which she was making reference. And now you compound it

with repetitive posts about a post that seems to have had no useful purpose?

My confidence in your scholarly ability has been further corroded. Not only

do you misrepresent my remarks about Ed Haslam's book but you appear to

be going out of your way to try to make mountains out of molehills. Is that

what you are doing here? Because that is the pattern that is now emerging.

I repeat:

Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

Anyone reading the whole email from which you are extracting a quote would

see that the "unauthorized book" was not Haslam's but Livingstone's. Do you

and Barb think that, by posting reinforcing comments, you can put one over on

the members of this thread? I invite anyone to go back to Hogan's earlier post

about this and read it through for themselves. It is very clear (by the time that

you reach the end of the email) that she was talking about Livingstone's book,

not Ed's. This is a nice example of the shoddy efforts being expended by those

who fear that Judyth's story may be taken seriously, which it certainly should be.

In fact, I have made this point (about the book under consideration) previously.

[Jack White]

Thanks, Todd. This seems to be a good summary. Let me add that Gary Shaw told me, if memory serves,

that the color slide set came from the FBI. I believe the poor quality is a clue to this. Autopsy photos

by a medical examiner would not be of such poor quality. All of these photos have ID numbers in the photos.

However, they MAY have been made by the medical examiner, and the FBI merely got a set. In addition to these,

in Shaw's set (as well as Wood's) there were another 8 or 10 taken in the funeral home.

Jack

All,

Everyone has been looking at and discussing 4 post-mortem photographs of LHO without putting them into their proper chronological context (i.e., when they were taken in relation to each other) which may be very important in analyzing their content.

I’ll try and do that here.

For the sake of the discussion I’ll identify the photos as follows:

1. The COLOR autopsy photos, specifically the one of LHO’s penis, which we’ll call LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS. My understanding is that this one photograph out of a series of autopsy photographs taken either by the Dallas County Medical examiner or an FBI agent who was present during the autopsy.

2. The two BW photos of LHO in the morgue, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW 1 and LHO MORGUE BW2. They are quite obviously sequential photographs taken by the same cameraman/camera.

3. The one BW photo of LHO in the morgue with the towel over his lower body, taken by the Dallas Police Department, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW3-DPD. We know this is a DPD photograph because it is s photo is present in the DPD files and appeared in both Curry’s book JFK Assassination File and Judy Bonner’s book Investigation of a homicide, both of which relied heavily on DPD photographs.

After examining the photographs carefully and looking at all of the “clues” within the photographs, here’s the sequence in which I believe that they must have been taken and what each one shows.

PRE-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS

penis points to right

gunshot entry wound NOT excised

other autopsy photos from this time show that the gunshot entry wound is NOT excised, that there appears to be no Y-incision, and that the sutures are similar to LHO MORGUE BW 1 and 2 below

PRE-AUTOPSY BUT AFTER GUN SHOT WOUND HAS BEEN EXCISED

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 1

2 men in scene

penis points downward

left hand is touching the body

gunshot entry wound is excised

possibly no Y-incision on right

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 2

6 men in scene (two of same men from above)

penis points to right

left hand away from body

gunshot entry wound is excised

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

POST-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 3 - DPD

gunshot entry wound is excised

complete Y-incision

trimmed and tightened sutures that appear significantly different from all of the above photos

rib cage looks like ribs have been cut

abdomen looks sunken

I’ll be interested to see what comments and analysis this draws

Todd

Monk,

I am a bit taken aback that you and Michael Hogan should confound

(1) evaluating the truth of Judyth's story with (2) the humanizing of

Oswald that her story represents. This is not a subtle distinction and

I am really surprised you are failing to acknowledge it. Some of her

critics, especially Barb Junkkarinen, have been going after Judyth on

the ground that she has purportedly been inconsistent about whether

or not the man she knew was circumcised. No less an eminence than

Doug Weldon has declared that this was the coup de grace for taking

her story seriously. This has been brewing for some time, but I only

find you raising these protests after attempts are made to resolve it.

What is most interesting here is that the evidence suggests that Lee

was partially rather than completely circumcised. Even Jack has said

that he appeared to be uncircumcised when viewing one of the black-

and-whites, with which I agree. If he was only partially circumcised,

however, then the question, "Was he circumcised?", has no definite

answer. I am going to presume that you are reading the posts in which

I have addressed this question, which I have now done several times.

What this means is that it is ambiguous and has more than one truthful

answer, where Judyth's integrity is not at stake even if she answered it

differently on different occasions. Jack or I might both answer similarly.

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Greg Burnham is 100% correct.

[Jack White]

Michael and Jim seem not to be "communicating".

As an outsider to their misunderstanding, let me try to see whether I understand.

My understanding is that JVB claims that Livingstone's book was unauthorized.

Somehow Jim thinks that Michael says that it was Haslam's.

Is this the gist of the misunderstanding? Is this minor point worth so much

verbiage?

Peace.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I would be grateful if you would make a comparison of the color photo and the black-and-whites, since

I and others, including Dean Hagerman, do not believe they are of the same organ. Pat Speer writes:

My two cents on Oswald's member... The black and white photos look legit. The color photo is a fake sold some conspiracy theorist years or decades ago under the assumption conspiracy theorists will pay for anything. The member could belong to Chancey Holt or James Files for all we know.

I think he is right, Jack. Could you do a comparative study to help resolve this question? Many thanks!

Jim

P.S. Lola has told me she thinks that the big one belongs to "Harvey" and that the little one to "Lee".

Thanks, Todd. This seems to be a good summary. Let me add that Gary Shaw told me, if memory serves,

that the color slide set came from the FBI. I believe the poor quality is a clue to this. Autopsy photos

by a medical examiner would not be of such poor quality. All of these photos have ID numbers in the photos.

However, they MAY have been made by the medical examiner, and the FBI merely got a set. In addition to these,

in Shaw's set (as well as Wood's) there were another 8 or 10 taken in the funeral home.

Jack

All,

Everyone has been looking at and discussing 4 post-mortem photographs of LHO without putting them into their proper chronological context (i.e., when they were taken in relation to each other) which may be very important in analyzing their content.

I’ll try and do that here.

For the sake of the discussion I’ll identify the photos as follows:

1. The COLOR autopsy photos, specifically the one of LHO’s penis, which we’ll call LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS. My understanding is that this one photograph out of a series of autopsy photographs taken either by the Dallas County Medical examiner or an FBI agent who was present during the autopsy.

2. The two BW photos of LHO in the morgue, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW 1 and LHO MORGUE BW2. They are quite obviously sequential photographs taken by the same cameraman/camera.

3. The one BW photo of LHO in the morgue with the towel over his lower body, taken by the Dallas Police Department, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW3-DPD. We know this is a DPD photograph because it is s photo is present in the DPD files and appeared in both Curry’s book JFK Assassination File and Judy Bonner’s book Investigation of a homicide, both of which relied heavily on DPD photographs.

After examining the photographs carefully and looking at all of the “clues” within the photographs, here’s the sequence in which I believe that they must have been taken and what each one shows.

PRE-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS

penis points to right

gunshot entry wound NOT excised

other autopsy photos from this time show that the gunshot entry wound is NOT excised, that there appears to be no Y-incision, and that the sutures are similar to LHO MORGUE BW 1 and 2 below

PRE-AUTOPSY BUT AFTER GUN SHOT WOUND HAS BEEN EXCISED

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 1

2 men in scene

penis points downward

left hand is touching the body

gunshot entry wound is excised

possibly no Y-incision on right

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 2

6 men in scene (two of same men from above)

penis points to right

left hand away from body

gunshot entry wound is excised

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

POST-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 3 - DPD

gunshot entry wound is excised

complete Y-incision

trimmed and tightened sutures that appear significantly different from all of the above photos

rib cage looks like ribs have been cut

abdomen looks sunken

I’ll be interested to see what comments and analysis this draws

Todd

Monk,

I am a bit taken aback that you and Michael Hogan should confound

(1) evaluating the truth of Judyth's story with (2) the humanizing of

Oswald that her story represents. This is not a subtle distinction and

I am really surprised you are failing to acknowledge it. Some of her

critics, especially Barb Junkkarinen, have been going after Judyth on

the ground that she has purportedly been inconsistent about whether

or not the man she knew was circumcised. No less an eminence than

Doug Weldon has declared that this was the coup de grace for taking

her story seriously. This has been brewing for some time, but I only

find you raising these protests after attempts are made to resolve it.

What is most interesting here is that the evidence suggests that Lee

was partially rather than completely circumcised. Even Jack has said

that he appeared to be uncircumcised when viewing one of the black-

and-whites, with which I agree. If he was only partially circumcised,

however, then the question, "Was he circumcised?", has no definite

answer. I am going to presume that you are reading the posts in which

I have addressed this question, which I have now done several times.

What this means is that it is ambiguous and has more than one truthful

answer, where Judyth's integrity is not at stake even if she answered it

differently on different occasions. Jack or I might both answer similarly.

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Greg Burnham is 100% correct.

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is incredible. Which posts have you made "invisible"? You are interfering with legitimate research on the

grounds that someone might be offended? That is beyond belief. And if I want to save my posts, can I do it?

My inference is that, having exposed another example of JFK photographic fakery, the forum is covering it up.

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

[Mike Williams]

This is incredible. Which posts have you made "invisible"? You are interfering with legitimate research on the

grounds that someone might be offended? That is beyond belief. And if I want to save my posts, can I do it?

My inference is that, having exposed another example of JFK photographic fakery, the forum is covering it up.

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

Only the incredulous Fetzer could procure such a moronic statement.

Up until yesterday, I allowed my 9 year old son to read this forum, as he has expressed an interest in the JFK Assassination. I for one am glad to see that someone finally brought some kind of sense to this idiotic thread. Kathy you are a blessing.

One would think there are many other facets of the totally moronic Judyth story to explore and verify than Oswalds dinger.

Did you honestly believe a foreskin would resolve the issue? Especially in the face of all her other idiocy?

I propose a class action suit. Anyone that has taken and "critical thinking course" taught by the illogical Fetzer should at once demand a refund!

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

This is absurd.

[John Dolva]

It's not absurd at all. The image resides on I don't know how many private computers, so, for those interested, further study is possible AND young minds have a transformation that for many it is the responsibility that parents be able to oversee. This stuff deaden the senses. Asking for consideration for this is not absurd. Non compliance obviously necessitates action. It has been done. Thank you, Kathy.

Edited May 13, 2010 by John Dolva

[Mike Williams]

It's not absurd at all. The image resides on I don't know how many private computers so for those interested further study is possible AND young students have a transformation that for many it is the responsibility that parents to oversee. Asking for consideration for this is not absurd.

John,

You are a man of good sense.

My best regard to you buddy.

[Jack White]

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

This is absurd.

I am opposed to censorship of legitimate research. These photos have been public for 30+ years

that I know of. Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes

are offended by nudity. These photos are not pleasant but are not gruesome, though some object

to viewing of corpses. I provided these photos, which I have had for 30+ years WITHOUT posting

them, at Jim's request because he was attempting to prove something. I believe the photos are

trivial to the search for the killers of JFK, but are part of the historical record and should not be

censored. As for LHO's privacy, it should be overridden by the ROLE HE PLAYED IN THE ASSASSINATION.

Even though he was innocent of the murder, his role was PATSY, and we are attempting to assemble

facts regarding how he was framed. The alleged role of JVB in this is being challenged, and some

are seeking to verify or falsify her allegations. It is likely that the person JVB calls Lee is the person

that John Armstrong shows is Harvey. So we are not discussing the privacy of Lee Harvey Oswald,

but of some unknown Hungarian youth we are trying to understand. I must note that John obtained

from Marina Oswald many far more gruesome photos of the corpse with permission to use them. I post

herewith a photo from the LHO exhumation provided to John Armstrong by Marina. I ask, which

is more objectionable...this view of the corpse's teeth or a photo of the victim's penis?

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates". We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy

This is absurd.

I am opposed to censorship of legitimate research. These photos have been public for 30+ years

that I know of. Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes

are offended by nudity. These photos are not pleasant but are not gruesome, though some object

to viewing of corpses. I provided these photos, which I have had for 30+ years WITHOUT posting

them, at Jim's request because he was attempting to prove something. I believe the photos are

trivial to the search for the killers of JFK, but are part of the historical record and should not be

censored. As for LHO's privacy, it should be overridden by the ROLE HE PLAYED IN THE ASSASSINATION.

Even though he was innocent of the murder, his role was PATSY, and we are attempting to assemble

facts regarding how he was framed. The alleged role of JVB in this is being challenged, and some

are seeking to verify or falsify her allegations. It is likely that the person JVB calls Lee is the person

that John Armstrong shows is Harvey. So we are not discussing the privacy of Lee Harvey Oswald,

but of some unknown Hungarian youth we are trying to understand. I must note that John obtained

from Marina Oswald many far more gruesome photos of the corpse with permission to use them. I post

herewith a photo from the LHO exhumation provided to John Armstrong by Marina. I ask, which

is more objectionable...this view of the corpse's teeth or a photo of the victim's penis?

Jack

Jack wrote...

"I am opposed to censorship of legitimate research. These photos have been public for 30+ years

that I know of. Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes

are offended by nudity. These photos are not pleasant but are not gruesome, though some object

to viewing of corpses. I provided these photos, which I have had for 30+ years WITHOUT posting

them, at Jim's request because he was attempting to prove something. I believe the photos are

trivial to the search for the killers of JFK, but are part of the historical record and should not be

censored."

I agree 100%, Jack.

It's absurd to censor these few photos.

For anyone worried about children seeing LHO's penis, are you not aware that XXX rated porn is just a few clicks away, easily available and even through Yahoo Images?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan