04-08-2013, 06:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-08-2013, 03:06 PM by Albert Rossi.)
Moving the post from the McBride thread here where it belongs:
---------------------
Originally Posted by Albert Rossi![[Image: viewpost-right.png]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png)
Let me state, first, that I have Into the Nightmare in my stack of books, and have not yet gotten to it, but am anxious to read it. So I do not know what the arguments about Tippit are that Joseph musters for his hypothesis. But, FWIW, I do know -- outside of Buchanan -- that this identification has been proposed in at least one other place: Phillips, D.T. A Deeper, Darker Truth: Tom Wilson's Journey into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Illinois: DTP/Companion Books, 2009. The epilogue suggests that Badge Man is Tippit because of the supposed pock mark on his left cheek uncovered by Wilson's digital analysis. In my opinion the book is, to be kind, extremely dubious (I am inclined to say totally bogus junk; there is not enough detail in the presentation to understand exactly what the mathematics of Wilson's technique supposedly consists of), but I thought I'd just add this into the mix here for completeness sake.
Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin
I don't want to divert this thread into one on another book, but since it was brought up, just a quick mention - and if more be needed, it should be on another thread. I am one of the few researchers to have worked with Tom Wilson and I'm trained as a scientist and do understand the theory behind his work. I agree that the book about his work suffers greatly in not enlightening the reader as to 1] his methodology and the theory behind it 2] the full spectrum of Wilson's findings - only some. There is nothing wrong, in theory, with Wilson's methodology, but it needs to be independently repeated by others. [by the way he was allowed to use his same technique as a Court approved expert witness many times on various murder and other forensic cases!] Sadly, his family has refused my repeated attempts to release the vast volume of his work, notes, technique, databases and computer programs et al. I'm going to shortly make one last attempt to appeal to them - citing the 50th....but they are either not up to speed on the need for this or afraid - I know not which. I find Wilson's work very interesting and potentially a key to unlock many mysteries. That Wilson uncovered or confirmed a few things does NOT mean that his every finding would be valid. Others, repeating his work would go a very long way to finding out which are valid and which are still open to question. Discarding his work because it is difficult to understand and non-transparent to most is not the correct way to vet it. I think there are some very important finds in Wilson's work - I also find some I am sceptical of - but, again, they need to be repeated to know their full validity. The FBI and other 'keepers of the Big Lie' were VERY worried about Wilson and his work [and I have evidence of this!] and likely worked to feed him some bad information/photos/data in order to discredit him. IMO
Originally Posted by Albert Rossi
Peter, thanks. I didn't mean to divert the thread. I knew nothing of Tom Wilson until I read this book last year. This is characteristic for me, an "outsider" who up until this year has not participated in conferences, blogs, done research, met people connected to the case, etc., etc., but has simply tried, since 1967, to keep up with the case by reading what I estimated as the more important books on it (I have made errors here, though ...). I would be very interested in what you have to say concerning WIlson's method. I have training in computer science and would like to know what the mathematics involves. I'd also like to know more about the court cases. Perhaps you could send me a private message, so as not to clutter the forum with another thread that rehashes this topic. My initial impressions of the book, as I said, were very doubtful, but I agree with you and Charles that the only way to evaluate a scientific method is by repeating it for its results.
Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin
One of several threads on Wilson is [URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2436-New-book...A-DEEPER-DARKER-TRUTH&"]here.
[/URL]Originally Posted by Albert Rossi
Thanks again, Peter. I read through the thread, and will be reading the article on photogrammetry this evening.
--------------
I've now read the photogrammetry article, which was interesting. It discusses how to use multiple overlapping photographs to achieve coordinate positions of objects in the photographs. But it's not really the same thing as what Wilson is doing, it seems to me.
Let me see if I can restate how his technique is described in Phillips' book: it proposes (via a microchip in a solid state camera) to interpret (through a set of Fourier transforms, I would guess) light reflected off a single photographic surface such that energy levels are mapped to densities and these densities are then digitally represented as grey-scale pixels. He then claims to be able selectively to strip layers from this digital representation.
What troubles me is the following: aside from the fact that information is somehow being added back into the image, and that information has to come from somewhere (in the case of photogrammetry, for instance, 3D is recovered from multiple 2D images; from what exactly is the added info recovered in this process?), how can such a process detect something behind/beyond the 2D surface of the photo (which is itself the chemical capturing of light reflected from surfaces)? That's one of the reasons why I wondered about the mathematics (after rereading the first chapter of Phillips' I was reminded that it was the optical device's "metal oxide semiconductor chip" doing this), and its basis in physical theory. It seemed like a rather astounding theoretical claim to me.
Others here have suggested that independent experimental confirmation is needed; I imagine what is meant by this is showing the repeatability of the results. But without the full procedure being disclosed, that would be hard to do.
In the meantime, it would be great to have a fairly detailed explanation from, say, a physicist, of how and why this technique is at least thought to be scientifically valid; if it is Wilson's unique variation of a standard technique, it would be interesting to know in what that variation appears to consist.
---------------------
Originally Posted by Albert Rossi
Let me state, first, that I have Into the Nightmare in my stack of books, and have not yet gotten to it, but am anxious to read it. So I do not know what the arguments about Tippit are that Joseph musters for his hypothesis. But, FWIW, I do know -- outside of Buchanan -- that this identification has been proposed in at least one other place: Phillips, D.T. A Deeper, Darker Truth: Tom Wilson's Journey into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Illinois: DTP/Companion Books, 2009. The epilogue suggests that Badge Man is Tippit because of the supposed pock mark on his left cheek uncovered by Wilson's digital analysis. In my opinion the book is, to be kind, extremely dubious (I am inclined to say totally bogus junk; there is not enough detail in the presentation to understand exactly what the mathematics of Wilson's technique supposedly consists of), but I thought I'd just add this into the mix here for completeness sake.
Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin
I don't want to divert this thread into one on another book, but since it was brought up, just a quick mention - and if more be needed, it should be on another thread. I am one of the few researchers to have worked with Tom Wilson and I'm trained as a scientist and do understand the theory behind his work. I agree that the book about his work suffers greatly in not enlightening the reader as to 1] his methodology and the theory behind it 2] the full spectrum of Wilson's findings - only some. There is nothing wrong, in theory, with Wilson's methodology, but it needs to be independently repeated by others. [by the way he was allowed to use his same technique as a Court approved expert witness many times on various murder and other forensic cases!] Sadly, his family has refused my repeated attempts to release the vast volume of his work, notes, technique, databases and computer programs et al. I'm going to shortly make one last attempt to appeal to them - citing the 50th....but they are either not up to speed on the need for this or afraid - I know not which. I find Wilson's work very interesting and potentially a key to unlock many mysteries. That Wilson uncovered or confirmed a few things does NOT mean that his every finding would be valid. Others, repeating his work would go a very long way to finding out which are valid and which are still open to question. Discarding his work because it is difficult to understand and non-transparent to most is not the correct way to vet it. I think there are some very important finds in Wilson's work - I also find some I am sceptical of - but, again, they need to be repeated to know their full validity. The FBI and other 'keepers of the Big Lie' were VERY worried about Wilson and his work [and I have evidence of this!] and likely worked to feed him some bad information/photos/data in order to discredit him. IMO
Originally Posted by Albert Rossi
Peter, thanks. I didn't mean to divert the thread. I knew nothing of Tom Wilson until I read this book last year. This is characteristic for me, an "outsider" who up until this year has not participated in conferences, blogs, done research, met people connected to the case, etc., etc., but has simply tried, since 1967, to keep up with the case by reading what I estimated as the more important books on it (I have made errors here, though ...). I would be very interested in what you have to say concerning WIlson's method. I have training in computer science and would like to know what the mathematics involves. I'd also like to know more about the court cases. Perhaps you could send me a private message, so as not to clutter the forum with another thread that rehashes this topic. My initial impressions of the book, as I said, were very doubtful, but I agree with you and Charles that the only way to evaluate a scientific method is by repeating it for its results.
Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin
One of several threads on Wilson is [URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2436-New-book...A-DEEPER-DARKER-TRUTH&"]here.
[/URL]Originally Posted by Albert Rossi
Thanks again, Peter. I read through the thread, and will be reading the article on photogrammetry this evening.
--------------
I've now read the photogrammetry article, which was interesting. It discusses how to use multiple overlapping photographs to achieve coordinate positions of objects in the photographs. But it's not really the same thing as what Wilson is doing, it seems to me.
Let me see if I can restate how his technique is described in Phillips' book: it proposes (via a microchip in a solid state camera) to interpret (through a set of Fourier transforms, I would guess) light reflected off a single photographic surface such that energy levels are mapped to densities and these densities are then digitally represented as grey-scale pixels. He then claims to be able selectively to strip layers from this digital representation.
What troubles me is the following: aside from the fact that information is somehow being added back into the image, and that information has to come from somewhere (in the case of photogrammetry, for instance, 3D is recovered from multiple 2D images; from what exactly is the added info recovered in this process?), how can such a process detect something behind/beyond the 2D surface of the photo (which is itself the chemical capturing of light reflected from surfaces)? That's one of the reasons why I wondered about the mathematics (after rereading the first chapter of Phillips' I was reminded that it was the optical device's "metal oxide semiconductor chip" doing this), and its basis in physical theory. It seemed like a rather astounding theoretical claim to me.
Others here have suggested that independent experimental confirmation is needed; I imagine what is meant by this is showing the repeatability of the results. But without the full procedure being disclosed, that would be hard to do.
In the meantime, it would be great to have a fairly detailed explanation from, say, a physicist, of how and why this technique is at least thought to be scientifically valid; if it is Wilson's unique variation of a standard technique, it would be interesting to know in what that variation appears to consist.