Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Oswald autopsy photographic fakery?
#1
Those who are following the Judyth Vary Baker thread on either forum
are no doubt aware of the controversies that have arisen about these
photographs. I am posting them here absent commentary, except to
observe that Judyth has described the man she knew in New Orleans
as having "impressive equipment" and that he did not shave his public
area. I am looking for yet another black-and-white, which was taken
from above his left foot and shows his penis lying across his left hip.
For more on the background to these issues, see the Judyth thread.


[Image: sxp44w.jpg]

[Image: 8y9ide.jpg]

[Image: 2usv5zq.jpg]

[Image: 14vcjd.jpg]

[Image: vry4w1.jpg]
Reply
#2
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
Reply
#3
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
"Pictures dont lie-unless they are made to" Harold Weisberg 1966
Reply
#4
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.


Jack White Wrote: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
Reply
#5
There's no fakery, Jim.

[Image: Oswald_Comparison.png]
JFK Assassination Forum
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com
Reply
#6
Jack White Wrote: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

The Dallas police shaved Oswald's public hair for evidence.
Reply
#7
James H. Fetzer Wrote: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.


Jack White Wrote: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


The shaving of his pubic hair took place BEFORE Oswald was shot, by the Dallas police to gather evidence for comparison purposes.
Reply
#8
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.
Reply
#9
Good, Anthony. They may have shaved his pubic hair to make
him look less masculine. It appears to have been done after he
was dead. Judyth has denied that Lee shaved himself. I believe
her. I appreciate that Anthony has added further explanation.

Anthony Marsh Wrote:
Jack White Wrote: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

The Dallas police shaved Oswald's public hair for evidence.
Reply
#10
You have omitted the space between the legs, which was greater on the
black-and-white than in the color version. Plus, as I previously observed,
the testicles in the black-and-white appear to be larger and heavier. The
penis itself does not look the same in both either. I am not convinced.

Duncan MacRae Wrote:There's no fakery, Jim.

[Image: Oswald_Comparison.png]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  If the case against Oswald was legitimate Gil Jesus 0 234 04-07-2024, 12:11 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Evidence of a Frontal Shot --Part III: The Autopsy Photos Gil Jesus 0 336 27-02-2024, 01:40 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Why the Government's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Part III Gil Jesus 0 514 10-12-2023, 12:08 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Why the Govenment's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Part II Gil Jesus 1 571 28-11-2023, 03:36 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Why the Government's case against Oswald is BS --- Part I Gil Jesus 1 594 15-11-2023, 04:55 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Thomas Kelley reports Oswald said he did not view parade Richard Gilbride 1 650 26-09-2023, 04:31 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Evidence of Witness Tampering in the case against Oswald Gil Jesus 0 645 28-07-2023, 11:31 AM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  The REAL reason Oswald went to Irving on 11.21.63 Gil Jesus 1 771 15-06-2023, 03:46 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  The Conspiracy to Kill Lee Harvey Oswald --- Conclusion Gil Jesus 1 927 01-04-2023, 04:23 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  The Conspiracy to Kill Lee Harvey Oswald --- Part IV Gil Jesus 0 691 26-03-2023, 02:10 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)