15-05-2010, 09:09 PM
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Anthony, Just when I was complimenting you. Unless you know the
context from having followed the Judyth thread, you are entitled to
your opinion, but independent of the context, it has very little value.
Anthony Marsh Wrote:Dean Hagerman Wrote:I have studied the pictures very closly and I agree with Jim that either the color photo is faked or was switched
Jim I really hope you can find the picture you are talking about
I think this study is imporatant as if this photo was faked/switched it goes to prove yet another alteration in the JFK case
Just compare the color photo with the black and white photos, it is very easy to tell of the difference in size, also consider how much closer the color photo is taken of LHOs privates, the color photo should show an even larger member
Instead we see an avarage or below avarage size compared to the large size we see in the B&W photos
Jim says that his photo shows an even larger member
I hope Jim can find this photo as it will help to prove that point
The ED forum shut down this research because the Mods thought the photos were offensive
I do not agree that the photos are offensive at all, we are all adults and if we research this with respect with no jokes or slang made about LHOs privates I dont see a problem
If this photo is faked or switched then it is a huge discovery
Well, in fact posting the photos violates the child pornography law by placing photos of nudity where children can see them. 10 year sentence.
I don't object to the nudity. I object to people wasting time discussing something so trivial when there is so much work to be done.
I know the context and it is silly.
I thought it should be pointed out to people who didn't know that posting the photos in a forum like this is a violation of the child pornography law.
I don't really care what Judyth did or did not say except that I don't like to see people lying about what she actually did say.