New book...A DEEPER, DARKER TRUTH

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray:

With all dues respect, they are not rhetorical questions.

If not rhetorical, how could anybody answer the two questions without being psychic? For example; who knows how many people have spoken to Groden about Wilson? Groden is the only one who may be able to answer. it's a bit like asking how many people have spoken to me about the JFK assassination. I couldn't answer the question so nobody else could possibly.

As I stated, if you ask who saw the presentation at the Ask symposium, people who did, could reply.

When I saw Wilson at ASK, he put up an autopsy photo, I think it was the stare of death photo, and he pronounced that "David Lifton is right. They took the bullets out. You can see one right here." I didn't see any bullet there. But he said this in front of like 500 people.

WHen I talked to Groden about this after I was quite puzzled. Since I have a degree in film, and I have studied photography formally in clssroom situations. So I know something about the actual chemical process that was used back then. (Its all changed now of course.) And even though I knew something about the chemcial process, I had a hard time understanding the methodology behind Wilson.

When I talked to Groden, who knew even more than I did, I asked him, "Bob, I have never heard of anyone in all the literature I have read on film and photography saying you could do something like that. I don't understand how."

Groden said something like: Jim I don't either and I have spent my life in films and photos analysis. In my opinion, what he is talking about is not possible.

BTW, not even Lifton bought it, if memory serves me right. And it endorsed his theory.

Look, I know people in the industry who have worked in digital enhancement of films. And they are state of the art. They don't understand Wilson.

Far be it for me to argue with an author I admire, but until we know more about Tom Wilson's methodology, it would seem a bit presumptious to say he was wrong. Just because we don't understand how he came to his conclusions, doesn't mean they are wrong. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. Remember what the Catholic Church said about Galileo's findings.

BTW, what book did Wilson write?

A tad pedantic, there, Jim. I didn't say he wrote the book. I said, Tom Wilson's book, as in the title "A Deep, Darker Truth. Tom Wilson's journey into the assassination of John F. Kennedy." I know it was written by Donald Phillips.


Regards,

Ray.

[Adele Edisen]

Some time ago Jack White and i defended Tom Wilson's work on another forum. His life long work and expertise was in detecting flaws in metal ingots at a U.S. Steel's foundry. He used photographic methods in this work, and then later appied the method to analyze photographs. There is nothing mysterious about it, as it is based on scientific principles involving light and its interactions.

Adele

[Albert Rossi]

Some time ago Jack White and i defended Tom Wilson's work on another forum. His life long work and expertise was in detecting flaws in metal ingots at a U.S. Steel's foundry. He used photographic methods in this work, and then later appied the method to analyze photographs. There is nothing mysterious about it, as it is based on scientific principles involving light and its interactions.

Adele

Hi Adele,

Is this discussion still available somewhere? I would like to read it because offhand I would think that there is a difference between using light reflected off a metal surface to determine something about the composition of that surface, and using light reflected off a 2D photographic representation of an object to determine something about the composition of the represented object (not the composition of the photograph itself). I am (earnestly) seeking enlightenment (if you pardon the pun) here ...

Thanks!

[Jim DiEugenio]

Ray:

Good to see you escaped Simkin's nuthouse.

But I was not being pedantic, just like I was not being rhetorical.

I thought, hey maybe wilson wrote a book or pamphlet explaining his ideas. I would like to see that book.

OK, that was not it.

And please, do we have to compare Wilson with one of the great scientists in history? I mean, what is next: Wilson and Newton?

See, there really is no mystery about the ideas of Galileo and Newton. They are easy to understand once explained. And you can do it with high school students.

With Wilson, to use four examples, Groden, myself, John Costella and Mili Cranor, don't understand it. And Cranor has one of the best visual and technical minds I know. And Costella is a scientist. Groden is a photo expert. I have a degree in film. So we are not dunces.

I used to have my own darkroom and I developed scores of photos. I made up the chemical solutions myself. And I then soaked the emulsions into the liquids. I then set the film on a plate with an enlarger and developed my own photos to whatever format I wanted to on photographic copy paper. So I know something about that process and how it works. I also know how optics and light transmittal are transferred through a lens onto a film plate with the strip of film going across it. And I know how that process works.

Never in all my years of studying film or photography-and it was a long time--did I ever come across anything like Wilson's technology. And the history of film is well over a century old. Photography is even older.

So before one accepts it, one should hear from people who have some exposure to it and have some well based doubts about it.

[Peter Lemkin]

Tom Wilson did not write, to my knowledge, anything about his technique. He gave a few presentations - and most of those left the audience scratching their heads - as did the book about Tom's work for most. I worked with Wilson some and he explained his technique to me in greater detail than at the ASK conference where I first heard it described. It makes sense, but is complex to explain - and can't go into the details here, now.

It does need verification, however, to convince most of it validity and that is the scientific method. I've been in contact with the family a few times [who have control over Tom's work, papers, computers, programs, databases (the most important parts!), etc. - but the family so far has not been willing to release the materials - which are voluminous and important and belong in a university archive or some such. He did much more work than is mentioned in his talks or the book [which I didn't feel tried much nor succeeded in explaining what Wilson was actually doing].

The computer and digital camera can 'discern' many more shades of gray than the eye; more colors and more information in an image of any color or B&W than can the eye - even using 'photographic means'. He had developed many databases which he could match spectra and various aspects of parts of an image [or real object] to detect its composition [metal, wax, plastic, wood, other], shape, size, details, angles of reflection, etc. that the eye can not [and Jack White using enlargement and standard techniques could not 'see' - of all researchers, Wecht and White were closest to Wilson]. He also used a kind of photo enhancement, similar to what NASA/ESA use to enhance blurry or low-pixel images from Space images. He had other techniques. These combined gave him the data from which he drew his conclusions. His techniques are one thing - his knowledge of the details of Dallas are another. He came VERY late [one year before his presentation at ASK] to the Assassination - before assuming the official version to be true. Also, I believe he embraced a few less-than-likely scenarios and the FBI and other 'keepers of the Big Lie' may well have led him in that direction or fed him false information, photos, data to discredit him - so much they feared his work, IMO.

He very naively gave a huge amount of his best materials to the FBI. A high-level special agent flew from HQ in D.C. to meet him in TX and accept this material which would nearly fill a van [his lawyer was an eye witness to this transfer of the materials and has communications between FBI and Wilson regarding it - I'll not mention the lawyer's name, but it would be well known to all better researchers]. The FBI now claims the exchange never took place, they have no materials from Wilson, so don't bother with a FOIA. To me, they obviously, found the materials damning to their official scenario - so made it all disappear down the rabbit hole.

Note also that Wilson was accepted [using the very same techniques] as an expert witness in many legal cases in Court - doing forensic and photo analysis.

More another time. Tom did work on several photos I gave him and gave me his analyses. He was very secretive, however [too!]....and guarded his technique a bit too much. He often said someone with his knowledge could easily re-create his system - which is true, but very few have his level of knowledge and most of them are not inclined to even 'go there' to question or test the official version of the JFK Assassination.

I hope soon to try once again via the lawyer and the family to move them to release his materials [which are now ironically near Dallas, when Tom lived near Wecht in Pittsburgh] to some university archive of their choice - hoping to use the 50th as some 'weight' to move them. Any who'd like to add their names to the request letter will be entertained.

More on Tom and his work soon. I personally believe much [not all] of his 'finds' have merit or partial merit and advanced many aspects of the case. The non-transparency of his technique has long been a problem, along with his great secrecy. He was [with, IMO, good reason very paranoid of the government trying to harm his work or him].

[Magda Hassan]

He very naively gave a huge amount of his best materials to the FBI. A high-level special agent flew from HQ in D.C. to meet him in TX and accept this material which would nearly fill a van [his lawyer was an eye witness to this transfer of the materials and has communications between FBI and Wilson regarding it - I'll not mention the lawyer's name, but it would be well known to all better researchers].

Does it start with a 'Z'?

[Peter Lemkin]

He very naively gave a huge amount of his best materials to the FBI. A high-level special agent flew from HQ in D.C. to meet him in TX and accept this material which would nearly fill a van [his lawyer was an eye witness to this transfer of the materials and has communications between FBI and Wilson regarding it - I'll not mention the lawyer's name, but it would be well known to all better researchers].

Does it start with a 'Z'?

No, not that traitor/infiltrator. This lawyer is on our side and a good person!

[Albert Rossi]

Tom Wilson did not write, to my knowledge, anything about his technique. He gave a few presentations - and most of those left the audience scratching their heads - as did the book about Tom's work for most. I worked with Wilson some and he explained his technique to me in greater detail than at the ASK conference where I first heard it described. It makes sense, but is complex to explain - and can't go into the details here, now.

It does need verification, however, to convince most of it validity and that is the scientific method. I've been in contact with the family a few times [who have control over Tom's work, papers, computers, programs, databases (the most important parts!), etc. - but the family so far has not been willing to release the materials - which are voluminous and important and belong in a university archive or some such. He did much more work than is mentioned in his talks or the book [which I didn't feel tried much nor succeeded in explaining what Wilson was actually doing].

The computer and digital camera can 'discern' many more shades of gray than the eye; more colors and more information in an image of any color or B&W than can the eye - even using 'photographic means'. He had developed many databases which he could match spectra and various aspects of parts of an image [or real object] to detect its composition [metal, wax, plastic, wood, other], shape, size, details, angles of reflection, etc. that the eye can not [and Jack White using enlargement and standard techniques could not 'see' - of all researchers, Wecht and White were closest to Wilson]. He also used a kind of photo enhancement, similar to what NASA/ESA use to enhance blurry or low-pixel images from Space images. He had other techniques. These combined gave him the data from which he drew his conclusions. His techniques are one thing - his knowledge of the details of Dallas are another. He came VERY late [one year before his presentation at ASK] to the Assassination - before assuming the official version to be true. Also, I believe he embraced a few less-than-likely scenarios and the FBI and other 'keepers of the Big Lie' may well have led him in that direction or fed him false information, photos, data to discredit him - so much they feared his work, IMO.

He very naively gave a huge amount of his best materials to the FBI. A high-level special agent flew from HQ in D.C. to meet him in TX and accept this material which would nearly fill a van [his lawyer was an eye witness to this transfer of the materials and has communications between FBI and Wilson regarding it - I'll not mention the lawyer's name, but it would be well known to all better researchers]. The FBI now claims the exchange never took place, they have no materials from Wilson, so don't bother with a FOIA. To me, they obviously, found the materials damning to their official scenario - so made it all disappear down the rabbit hole.

Note also that Wilson was accepted [using the very same techniques] as an expert witness in many legal cases in Court - doing forensic and photo analysis.

More another time. Tom did work on several photos I gave him and gave me his analyses. He was very secretive, however [too!]....and guarded his technique a bit too much. He often said someone with his knowledge could easily re-create his system - which is true, but very few have his level of knowledge and most of them are not inclined to even 'go there' to question or test the official version of the JFK Assassination.

I hope soon to try once again via the lawyer and the family to move them to release his materials [which are now ironically near Dallas, when Tom lived near Wecht in Pittsburgh] to some university archive of their choice - hoping to use the 50th as some 'weight' to move them. Any who'd like to add their names to the request letter will be entertained.

More on Tom and his work soon. I personally believe much [not all] of his 'finds' have merit or partial merit and advanced many aspects of the case. The non-transparency of his technique has long been a problem, along with his great secrecy. He was [with, IMO, good reason very paranoid of the government trying to harm his work or him].

Peter,

Thanks again for providing this background on your experiences with Tom, his work, and his "dealings" with the FBI, whose behavior is not surprising.

Since I am undoubtedly the person responsible for opening this whole question up again (with my post concerning Tippit on Joseph McBride's thread), I think it fitting that I offer to sign the request to make his personal papers and databases available. Even though I do not profess to have expertise in optics or photographic analysis, I would be very interested in obtaining a fuller explanation and evaluation of the techniques he employed. The tone of my original assessment was not meant to be peremptory, though it may have been a bit too harsh; however, your own position leads me to feel my agnosticism at this point is not entirely unjustified. So I await further clarification, as do others.

If you at some point decide to write up a technical description of Wilson's complex method from your own understanding and conversations with him, I would be very interested in reading it.

- Al

[Jerry Ellis]

What i have never understood is why Wilson's technique is totally unknown except in these JFK assassination circles. One would think that those from outside the JFK community would have knowledge of it and be able to discuss it.

Is Wilson's technique proprietary to US Steel? And is this the only known application of it, other than in US Steel manufacturing?

[Peter Lemkin]

What I know about Wilson comes from other authors (Trask, Wecht, Livingstone). It seems to me that his image analysis process might be useful on high-quality photos and films, but the Z-film and Moorman Polaroid don't really qualify.

While high quality photos or X-rays are always best...trust me, Wilson INSISTED I send him the VERY best quality Cancellere photo I could obtain [and I managed after MUCH trouble and the kind help from a sympathetic insider at the private photo archive in which the original negative is held] a contact print from the original negative - not a copy print, or copy of a copy print or copy-negative. That said, his technique was also applicable to damaged, poor-quality, even altered [naturally nor not] images - although with a greater range of error.