14-05-2010, 03:26 PM
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
[quote name='Kathy Beckett' post='192640' date='May 13 2010, 04:36 PM']
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[/quote]
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
[quote name='Kathy Beckett' post='192640' date='May 13 2010, 04:36 PM']
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[/quote]