Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Mike Williams]

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

Hardly an accurate comparison.

I see people smiling on Television daily, but dont see the ole wangdoodle. If I had I certainly would not allow my children to see that.

How in the world is Oslwald's schlong going to further anything? It is but a minor contention point in the Judyth idiocy that needs to overcome much more than a tallywacker.

I certainly think the subject matter does not need this kind of ridiculousness to make or break any point.

Besides the fact that "impressive" in regard to someones "equipment" is completely subjective. A matter of opinion, in which case the whole "exhibit" is worthless.

I have to wonder, is it just the objective of some to make this forum a laughing stock?

[Mike Williams]

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?

I for one am responsible enough not to let my child view such things. Unlike some who might not have the smarts to prohibit such things.

I completely agree with Kathys decision, and in fact I myself would have questioned the discretion of the poster and placed them on moderation.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

If Judyth's story, as it relates to JFK's assassination, offers me nothing further, save for the confirmation of a fact (LHO'S innocence) of which I am already fully convinced--for me, it is irrelevant. I don't need or want more information about the guy who didn't do it.

She had an affair with a partially spliced married man who was innocent of murder, but guilty of adultry. So what? However, that's just my take on it. This is the reason that I didn't expend the considerable time, energy, and funds required to confirm her story from the beginning. In my view, I would learn nothing of importance that I didn't already know--and at best, I'd discover details of an affair I didn't care to know. Information about his genitals is one such detail.

GO_SECURE

monk

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 Greg Burnham

[Mike Williams]

I would recommend that if the good "DR." Fetzer wishes to delve into examining a penis, he should do so on his own site. It would fit right in with the rest of the lunacy.

Oswald innocent? In a word Delusional.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

AN OPEN LETTER TO JOHN SIMKIN ON BEHALF OF RESEARCH

John,

We have been making excellent progress on the Judyth thread,

where I have been able to disentangle charges that have been

made against Judyth, especially by Barb Junkkarninen, on the

ground that she has sometimes said that the man she knew was

circumcised and sometimes not. She has also said of him that

he had "impressive equipment". I knew that to be true because

of an autopsy photograph I have in my possession but have not

been able to locate since we moved. It's in one of thirty boxes!

Jack posted two black-and-whites from the same sequence as

the one in my possession, but not mine. We have also posted

some color photos that appear to be of a different person. This

looks like another case of photographic fakery, where only one

person could reasonably be supposed to be the target. I want

to get to the bottom of this, including the fakery charge, but now

the forum has been "cleansed" of all of the autopsy photographs.

What can possibly justify this outrage? We are all adults here.

It has only been by studying the photographs that I have found

the man Judyth knew was partially but not completely circumcised.

This means that the question, "Was he circumcised?", is indeter-

minate. It if means, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", then

the answer is "No". If it means, "Was he (partially) circumcised,

then the answer is "Yes". This implies that the criticism directed

at Judyth, which Doug Weldon has said was the coup de grace of

her credibility, actually has no force. There are may others, but

I offer this as a benefit to our research from studying the photos.

Not only have whole posts been removed, such as my #2487,

with no advanced notice and no change to save our own work.

This is not the kind of conduct that I expected of this forum. I

have long admired what you have created here, but this kind of

exercise--which can only be justified by prudery--has no place

in research on subjects as important as the assassination of JFK.

I entreat you to reverse this decision, restore the deleted posts

and pictures, and allow us to get on with our research. Thanks.

Jim

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

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

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 second that

I think this needs to be looked into, something is not right (fake photo/switched photo)

I have a question for those who think pictures of a naked LHO are offensive

Are you offended when your spouse walks out of the shower naked?

Do you turn away and say "Holy cow thats so offensive! Please cover up my eyes cant take it!"

Do you run out of the locker room of the gym screaming "Its offensive Its offensive!"

Maybe I have just been around alot of naked people in my life because the photos do not offened me at all

They do not change the fact that LHO is innocent in my eyes (Im still trying to understand what Greg is talking about)

Jack and Todd are correct

[John Dolva]

Thank you mike. As a child I had a revelation through an old b/w photo book from the finnish line that became accessible to me and there, in a fox hole, I could see my young dead uncle gripping a rifle. I just wish it hadn't happened so early. I'm not prudish about his bloody dick.

[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?

I for one am responsible enough not to let my child view such things. Unlike some who might not have the smarts to prohibit such things.

I completely agree with Kathys decision, and in fact I myself would have questioned the discretion of the poster and placed them on moderation.

All of this from the author of 5 recent posts making adolescent jokes on the topic and another one calling the penis a "schlong", a "ole wangdoodle", and a "talltywacker".

Edited May 13, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If anyone has made more meaningless posts than Mike Williams, I cannot imagine

whom that would be. Notice the contentlessness of each and every one of them,

none of which displays the least understanding of the issues under consideration.

And that pattern continues here. If anyone qualifies as a laughing stock, it is not

me or Jack or Dean or even Junkkarinenen, who raised the question that led to this

aspect of our investigation (about his circumcision), but he--Mike Williams--himself!

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

Hardly an accurate comparison.

I see people smiling on Television daily, but dont see the ole wangdoodle. If I had I certainly would not allow my children to see that.

How in the world is Oslwald's schlong going to further anything? It is but a minor contention point in the Judyth idiocy that needs to overcome much more than a tallywacker.

I certainly think the subject matter does not need this kind of ridiculousness to make or break any point.

Besides the fact that "impressive" in regard to someones "equipment" is completely subjective. A matter of opinion, in which case the whole "exhibit" is worthless.

I have to wonder, is it just the objective of some to make this forum a laughing stock?

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes are offended by nudity.

I think this sums up what is going on right now in this thread

[Greg Burnham]

I object to reserchers taking the study of a presumably innocent man's genitals this far because it does nothing to enhance or detract from the case made against him. However, I believe it is still within the purview of legitimate research. I would think that researchers can self moderate this matter without the help of the admin's power to censor. I apologize if my posts encouraged such encroachment on freedom of speech. That was not my intent. It was an appeal to the researchers NOT to the admins!

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Professor Fetzer wrote:

"but this kind of exercise--which can only be justified by prudery--has no place

in research on subjects as important as the assassination of JFK.

I entreat you to reverse this decision, restore the deleted posts

and pictures, and allow us to get on with our research. Thanks."

While I agree with little that you say on the case, with this I agree with you 100%.

AN OPEN LETTER TO JOHN SIMKIN ON BEHALF OF RESEARCH

John,

We have been making excellent progress on the Judyth thread,

where I have been able to disentangle charges that have been

made against Judyth, especially by Barb Junkkarninen, on the

ground that she has sometimes said that the man she knew was

circumcised and sometimes not. She has also said of him that

he had "impressive equipment". I knew that to be true because

of an autopsy photograph I have in my possession but have not

been able to locate since we moved. It's in one of thirty boxes!

Jack posted two black-and-whites from the same sequence as

the one in my possession, but not mine. We have also posted

some color photos that appear to be of a different person. This

looks like another case of photographic fakery, where only one

person could reasonably be supposed to be the target. I want

to get to the bottom of this, including the fakery charge, but now

the forum has been "cleansed" of all of the autopsy photographs.

What can possibly justify this outrage? We are all adults here.

It has only been by studying the photographs that I have found

the man Judyth knew was partially but not completely circumcised.

This means that the question, "Was he circumcised?", is indeter-

minate. It if means, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", then

the answer is "No". If it means, "Was he (partially) circumcised,

then the answer is "Yes". This implies that the criticism directed

at Judyth, which Doug Weldon has said was the coup de grace of

her credibility, actually has no force. There are may others, but

I offer this as a benefit to our research from studying the photos.

Not only have whole posts been removed, such as my #2487,

with no advanced notice and no change to save our own work.

This is not the kind of conduct that I expected of this forum. I

have long admired what you have created here, but this kind of

exercise--which can only be justified by prudery--has no place

in research on subjects as important as the assassination of JFK.

I entreat you to reverse this decision, restore the deleted posts

and pictures, and allow us to get on with our research. Thanks.

Jim

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

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Prudery has no place in research. The photos are not obscene, though some prudes are offended by nudity.

I think this sums up what is going on right now in this thread

Absolutely. As I said, it's absurd.

[Mike Williams]

If anyone has made more meaningless posts than Mike Williams, I cannot imagine

whom that would be. Notice the contentlessness of each and every one of them,

none of which displays the least understanding of the issues under consideration.

And that pattern continues here. If anyone qualifies as a laughing stock, it is not

me or Jack or Dean or even Junkkarinenen, who raised the question that led to this

aspect of our investigation (about his circumcision), but he--Mike Williams--himself!

Fetzer,

I expected as much from someone who common sense seems to elude so often.

You Sir are a joke on any forum, or on any platform.

"This is America, you wanna be a nut, be a nut, and you Sir are a nut!"

Todd,

In the face of the absurdity of the whole thread, my comments are the least of the atrocities.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Evan Burton
Name corrected by moderator

[Pat Speer]

I think the photos--in this instance--seeing as they appear to be inconsistent--are of a legitimate interest to researchers.

While Oswald's dingy may be offensive to some, this is THEIR problem, which should not become OUR problem. It was the FEAR of offensive photos, after all, that supposedly led to Earl Warren's refusing to let Dr. Humes study the photos of Kennedy, which resulted in much confusion, and helped make this forum a necessity.

One can't shy away from the gruesome in one's pursuit of truth, IMO. In my research, I have read hundreds of forensic publications, and have seen thousands of disgusting photos. Kids shot in the face with shotguns. Heads squashed by truck tires, and then stitched back together. Shrapnel wounds. Bodies pulled from lakes covered with leaches. Bodies found in basements covered with maggots. It's horrific. And yet the more horrific, the more likely it is to be published.

There are websites devoted to this stuff. News footage from around the world of gruesome car accidents. Heads in the road.

The dead have no privacy rights. News organizations sell their footage without obtaining releases. Forensic Pathologists retain the most gruesome photos for their personal records and then publish them in journals. No releases needed. Morgue employees sell their photos to the tabloids.

(Beyond Kennedy and Oswald, the autopsy photos of Marilyn Monroe, Tupac Shakur, John Lennon, etc. can be found on the internet.)

When you're dead, you are meat. Meat can be studied. And consumed.

As a compromise, however, I suggest that Jack and Jim or anyone wishing to refer back to photos of Oswald's dingy simply provide a link to said photo within their post. That way only those wanting to see the image will be subjected to it...