05-08-2013, 01:57 PM
Peter Lemkin Wrote: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