Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

Discussion on the Judyth thread on the EF turned toward a study of autopsy photographs for several reasons, including (a) because one of Judyth's critics has badgered her over having said (on different occasions) that the man she knew in New Orleans was and was not circumcised and (b) because she (Judyth) has said (on at least one occasion) that Lee had "impressive equipment", which I knew from an autopsy photograph that I have but am presently unable to locate (after moving to Madison from Duluth, where it is one of some thirty boxes I had not planned to unpack).

When Dean Hagerman sent me a colored photo that did not comport with the one I have, it initiated an exchange about these issues. Rather to my astonishment, at a point where I believed we were making progress, the forum deleted all of these images, including the entirety of the following post (#2487). I have asked if I might move this discussion here and received approval for doing so. Jack believes they are all authentic. The question of autopsy photo fakery is interesting in its own right, so I am going to initiate a new thread on this forum about that issue specifically.

In his comments, Jack has said © that he appeared to have an erection (a remark that he has later qualified) and (d) that it looked to him as if he were uncircumcised (since the foreskin overlaps the glans). I have found that many men are partially rather than completely circumcised, as appears to be the case here. Which means that the question, "Was he circumcised?", has not definite answer. If it means, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", then the answer is "No". But if it means, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", then the answer is "Yes". I infer that the question is now moot.

Post #2487

Super Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1409
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 1135

EVIDENCE OF PHOTO FAKERY IN THE OSWALD AUTOPSY

Dean has asked if the second of Jack's autopsy photographs
is the one that I have (somewhere) but cannot presently find,
to which the answer is, "No!" As I have explained before, the
one I am talking about has his member lying across his hip to
the right from the perspective of the camera and the left from
the perspective of the subject. It looks to be as much as seven
inches long (flaccid), which is why I thought that Jack had the
one I have: even flaccid, it is the size of most men's erections.

What we have already available, even absent the image I have
(which I may have to go through 30 boxes to locate) is rather
striking. Here is a partially covered image of the body, where
his member is not visually accessible, as in many other photos:



Here is the first of the two that Jack has now posted. Note
the size of the penis appears considerably larger than normal:



Here is the second of the two that Jack has now posted. Note
that the size of the testicles appears much larger than normal:



Here is a comparison that Dean Hagerman prepared, which shows
that the more recent (colored) photo does not appear authentic:



Here is a collection that combines some recent (colored) photos with
some (authentic) black-and-whites, some of which are also colorized:



As Dean observes below, "anyone can see that the sizes [comparing the
more recent (colored) photos with the earlier (black-and-whites)] are way
different", which is correct. The difference would be even more impressive
when we eventually access a copy of the black-and-white in my possession.

So we have enough evidence already that fakery has been taking place in
relation to the Oswald autopsy photographs. The only possible target that
I can imagine from minimizing the size of his member, which Judyth alone
has described as "impressive equipment", which, I submit, is exactly right.

Dean expresses concern about the Reitzes email. But, as Judyth herself has
explained in the email she sent to Gary Buell (which she also sent to me but
I had not yet posted), the Reitzes email appears to be untrustworthy. And,
as Gary Buell adds, what reason would she have to misdescribe his member?

As he observes, "Her strongest point is that even if she were faking it would
not make sense for her to simply guess as to whether LHO was circumsized
or not, especially since that information was in the autopsy record", a point
about which I completely agree. The weight of the evidence favors Judyth.

Judyth has said that Lee had "impressive equipment". Autopsy photographs
that Dean Hagerman sent to me did not confirm it, but I knew from viewing
an autopsy photograph in my own possession. Now we know that Judyth's
description is right and some of the Oswald autopsy photos have been faked.

Think about it. This is another line of proof that Judyth is "the real deal" on a
par with the existence of an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker" whom Ed Haslam
met in New Orleans. In fact, it is even more powerful proof, because, while
we do not have access to the impostor, we have access to the photographs.

I appreciate Dean Hagerman's response to the discover that some of these
autopsy photographs are faked, as I have been saying for some time now.
If anyone can come up with a better explanation this than to discredit the
living witness, I would like to know. That appears to be their only purpose.