Oswald autopsy photographic fakery?

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

No, I am very grateful to you for locating those black-and-whites.
I am disappointed one of them was not the copy I have but cannot
find. As we age, we find ourselves with less and less time for every
thing apart from the necessities of life. You have done extremely
well in allocating your time, my friend. Most of the members of the
JFK research community acknowledge their debt to you for having
pioneered the area of photo analysis and interpretation, which, of
course, came to fruition with THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX
(2003), which will eventually be acknowledged as having provided
the definitive proof of fabrication, thanks to you, David W. Manitk,
David Healy, John P. Costella, and David S. Lifton. Thank you for
hanging in there. I still learn from you even when we disagree!

Jim

Jim...I do not have time to do the photo comparison you have asked
repeatedly for, especially when I think it would be inclusive.

Believe it or not, I am very busy every day, leaving little time for
the internet. I had two doctor appointments last week, a dental
appointment this week, and a doctor appointment the following
week...plus it is springtime, and I work four hours a day in my
large yard.

You are right. I am NOT an authority on the lho pubic area, and
do not desire to be. But I DID at your repeated requests spend
considerable time finding the two scans which you are studying,
for which I received scant gratitude.

JVB HAS said conflicting things about this which should be resolved,
not ignored. All I go by are the autopsy report and photos. Beyond
that I know of nothing and will not speculate.

I have NO ADAMANT OPPOSITION to everything JVB says. I even
wish that ANYTHING she says could be confirmed by verifiable
evidence. So far, I only believe that she worked at Reily Coffee
during a time that she worked there, and that she possibly knew
him. Beyond that, nothing is independently verifiable.

Back to the photos...the lack of pubic hair is more interesting to
me than the circumcision issue. I think circumcision IS ESTABLISHED
by Dr. Rose. Surely you have no reason to believe the autopsy
report is altered!

Jack

Well, Jack, you are not the authority on Oswald's private
parts, while Judyth may well be. I have asked you for a
comparison between the color image and the black-and-
white. For some reason, instead of doing that, you are
prevaricating. I don't like that. Spare us that she may
or may not have said "conflicting things", since I have
already dealt with the circumcised/uncircumcised issue
and am unaware of any others. The shaving could have
taken place after his death but before these photographs
were taken. Use a little imagination. Dean seems to me
to be right: the black-and-white testicles are larger and
the color member is smaller, plus the legs are not as far
apart in the color as in the back-and-white. Why don't
you do one of your patented comparisons and let us see
for ourselves how they match. I have asked you to do
that before. I don't understand all this hesitation unless
you are apprehensive that the outcome will undermine
your adamant opposition to everything Judyth tells us.

Jim...Dr. Rose's autopsy reports the pubic hair shaved.
The photos show the same.

That Judyth Baker disputes this does not necessarily show
photographic fakery. There are many options to explain
this oddity, including that Judyth did not know...especially
since she is quoted as having said conflicting things about his
"private parts."

Jack