New book...A DEEPER, DARKER TRUTH

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks again, Peter, for what details you are able to give.

You're welcome. Perhaps soon sometime I will have more to say if I remember it. There were other odds and ends related to the matter that once were on the EF - but all my posts were removed. There are a few things I'm bound by promises of confidentiality not to disclose, but none change things as I have presented them. A few of us who knew Tom felt his death may not have been a natural one - even if he was not the youngest man. He, himself, felt fearful after his discoveries and after turning things over to the FBI. He was as naive about the FBI as he was that his lawsuit would open up the case. He expected the FBI to get back to him and request more materials and/or to demonstrate his techniques.....they never got back to him and, as mentioned, deny ever receiving the materials [which I could produce proof to refute via a very trusted and well-known third party - but that would be 'tempting the devil', at this point - and this 'third party' doesn't want to be put in such a position unless it will likely produce some positive effect.] I have had cordial, if restrained, communications with the eldest [only?] son; the widow of Wilson, to me, seems afraid to discuss the matter and to release the materials - and not because she doubts their validity or the validity of Tom's work - quite the opposite, IMO. So, we are left in a quandary. As I said, I have tried before, and I will try once more, using the 50th as 'leverage' to request that the family release the materials - which they can not use, and have no plans to use themselves. The materials are secure, but only collecting dust. It very well could be there are hidden forces at work regarding this matter. I have no evidence, but I wouldn't be surprised, given what I know.

[Tracy Riddle]

Some links on Tom Wilson from Weisberg's archives:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%...m%2001.pdf
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%...m%2003.pdf
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%...m%2002.pdf
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%...m%2019.pdf

[Peter Lemkin]

Some links on Tom Wilson from Weisberg's archives:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ...tem 01.pdf
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ...tem 03.pdf
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ...tem 02.pdf
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ...tem 19.pdf

I just remembered that Wilson had written a three page unpublished paper entitled 'Technology Triggers The Truth'.

[Peter Lemkin]

Found it....Note: This was written early on in his 'investigations' and does NOT include all of his findings nor his final conclusions - they are best found in the book.



TechnologyTriggers The Truth

ByThomas W. Wilson

Itwas a monotonous evening in November, 1988. I had been conductingrepetitive
realworld analyses techniques on the detection and identification offlaws in metal
products.My industrial image processing and computer analysis system had been
performingperfectly for several weeks and had passed with flying colors.
A homevideo recording of the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassination waslying
nearbyon my desk. I removed the metals test tape from the system andinserted the
JFKtape into the recorder. As the program played through the system,extracting
uniqueprocessed images from the overall scene, it was entertaining towatch.
However,the moment the famous Mary Moorman photograph appeared, a quest that
wouldchange my life was initiated.
Myimage processing system has been taught to provide a visual sparkleor flash of
brightnesson the monitor when bare metal, a flaw, is detected on a coil ofcoated
metal.I was shocked when the machine detected and flashed a spot behind thefence
onthe grassy knoll. The image processing system had always beentruthful in its
detectionand identification capability. This new disclosure signified only oneof two
possibilities.Either years of image processing development was flawed, or there was
ametallic object behind the fence.
Iabandoned all my other projects.To determine which possibility was inerror, several
weeksof unrelenting analyses and confirmation techniques provedscientifically that
themachine did tell the truth. The sparkle was the detection of metalwithin the
photograph.Additional processing of the metal object provided enough finite datato
concludethat it was a metal badge, worn by a person standing and firing arifle from
behindthe fence on the grassy knoll. After reviewing the assassinationvideo tape and
doingsome research at the library, I came to the bone chilling conclusionthat this
technologyhad triggered the truth. Our 35th President had been assassinated bya
Fteamof conspirators.
Sincemy initial finding in 1988, I have used my technology as aninvestigative tool to
._..)analyze the only true artifacts of the JFK assassination that arestill frozen in time.
Theseartifacts known as the Bronson, Moorman, Nix and Zapruder images have
divulgedthe truths that lay within. Truths that the human eye cannot reveal.The major
findingsby image processing are:
ThePresident's wounds. A projectile fired from the grassy knollentered his neck
justabove his necktie knot and exited at the back of his neck. Thetracheotomy incision
didnot destroy this evidence. A projectile fired from the Texas SchoolBook Depository
enteredhis back at a 45 degree angle to the vertical axis of his spine. Aprojectile fired
fromthe grassy knoll entered his head at his right front and exited fromthe top right
sideof his head.

---

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"] Page 3[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


page2- Technology triggers the truth
Multipleassassins. The artifacts reveal two shooters behind thefence on the
grassyknoll. Other non conforming individuals are detected in the crowd atDealy
Plazaand the surrounding building windows.
Locationof the President's limousine. The exact position of thelimousine is
paramountto the paths of the projectiles. When the projectile struck his head,the
limousinewas further down Elm street and closer to the fence than originally
concluded.Triangulation of two photographs taken at different angles is moreaccurate
thancounting movie frames.
Autopsyphotographs. If the purported official autopsy photographs Ihave
analyzedmatch the originals now in custody, the truth is known. Some of theautopsy
imageshave been photographically altered. The President's skin coloring,abnormal
dueto Addison's disease, is one telltale sign of where the cadaver endsand a fake
photographbegins.
Amore compelling piece of evidence is the restorative art performed onthe cadaver.
Anextensive image analysis of several cadavers in all states ofrestorative art,
performedby credible licensed practitioners was completed. When the processed
imagesof these cadavers are compared, the exact correlation is immediately
apparent.It is extremely important to safeguard the photographs now in custodyfrom
furthertampering.
TheOswald backyard photographs. The Warren Commission, basedupon
experttestimony, concluded that Exhibits 133 A and B are truthful evidencethat
Oswalddid own and display the assassination rifle. Oswald's wife, Marina,testified
underoath that she did take photographs of him wearing and holdingfirearms and
dressedin identical garb. Analyses of these photographs show that they were
photographicallyaltered. Oswald's face is superimposed on another head and body.
Otherareas of the figure are a combination of two different photographs.The reflection
ofthe sun on the shoes of the figure were correlated to the angularzenith of the sun's
travel.This has provided the exact time of day the photograph was taken. Thetime of
dayis critical to the Warren Commission findings.
Withthis evidence, I traveled to Texas to speak with Oswald's widow,Marina, to
establishwhy, when the photographs are fake, she stated she took similar
photographs.What I found in Texas was an intelligent, compassionate woman, still
carryingthe stigma as the widow of the man accused of assassinating thePresident.
Marinais trying to live in peace. As a new American citizen, she believesthe American
peoplehave tremendous power in their collective hands and there is no placefor
publicapathy where the future of our country is at stake. At this meeting,we found out
whythe photographs are different in content.


SinceNovember 22,1963, many people have been involved in seeking thetruth.
Somehave been deceivers and some have been deceived. Some havegained
monetaryriches and some have paid with their lives and / or reputations.Many
Americansbelieve that we do not know the truth. It is time to end this montageof
conspiracy.Image processing technology has uncovered enough hard evidenceto
triggerthe truth.
Iam prepared to testify under oath, along with 'other witnesses whowill come forward,
topresent hard evidence of a conspiracy. I would like the opportunityto present my
findingsto the Kennedy family, as I did to Marina Oswald Porter. When theysee my
evidence,I believe they will support me in demanding a new investigation. Iam
preparedto provide the complete description of the image processinghardware,
softwareand protocol to several credible institutions for a controlledsimultaneous
verificationof my findings. The entire verification process, documentation andall
associateddata and findings must be made available to the American public.
Whenthese actions are taken, the truth, triggered by today's technology,will be known
andjustice will prevail.

[Charles Drago]

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.

Help me out, Jim, by being more specific about your "degree in film." Is it a B.A.? Were your studies centered on the history of motion pictures, including technical innovations? Writing for the screen? Or did you earn a B.S. related to, among other subjects, the properties of photographic film with an emphasis on chemistry? What I'm wondering, of course, is how your "degree in film" possibly could be the basis for a significant contribution to a rigid scientific examination of Wilson's method.

As for Mili Cranor, know that she is a dear friend of long standing. I harbor profound respect for her mind. And I guarantee you that she would be the first to acknowledge that A) science can advance in such a way as to challenge the longest, strongest held "givens," B) "if I don't understand it, it can't be real" is a statement driven not by the scientific method, but by ego, and C) fallacious arguments from authority occur when legitimate expertise and expert consensus are not established.

So far, you've established neither.

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.

Which is the equivalent of stating that successfully completing Biology 101 and making a hobby of dissecting frogs qualifies you to pass informed judgment on claimed advances in biochemistry.

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.

See, prior to the formulation and presentation and testing of those ideas, they would have been impossible to grasp, let alone explain.

See, because they wouldn't have existed.

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.

Which is the equivalent of stating that never in all your great-great-grandfathers' years of riding horses did they ever come across anything like a Ferrari.

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

Not people who have "some exposure to it," but rather qualified scientists who have had the opportunity to conduct in-depth study of Wilson's methods -- without which "doubts" simply cannot be "well based [sic]."

From Day One I have publicly called for rigorous scientific testing of Wilson's methods. I continue to do so. What I want to believe is hardly the point.

What I want others to believe about me is hardly the point.

See?

[Charles Drago]

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.

Help me out, Jim, by being more specific about your "degree in film." Is it a B.A.? Were your studies centered on the history of motion pictures, including technical innovations? Writing for the screen? Or did you earn a B.S. related to, among other subjects, the properties of photographic film with an emphasis on chemistry? What I'm wondering, with all due respect, is how your "degree in film" possibly could be the basis for a significant contribution to a rigid scientific examination of Wilson's method.

As for Mili Cranor, know that she is a dear friend of long standing. I harbor profound respect for her mind. And I guarantee you that she would be the first to acknowledge that A) science can advance in such a way as to challenge the longest, strongest held "givens," B) "if I don't understand it, it can't be real" is a statement driven not by the scientific method, but by ego, and C) fallacious arguments from authority occur when legitimate expertise and expert consensus are not established.

So far, you've established neither.

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.

Which is the equivalent of stating that successfully completing Biology 101 and making a hobby of dissecting frogs qualifies you to pass informed judgment on claimed advances in biochemistry.

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.

See, prior to the formulation and presentation and testing of those ideas, they would have been impossible to grasp, let alone explain.

See, because they wouldn't have existed.

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.

Which is the equivalent of stating that never in all your great-great-grandfathers' years of riding horses did they ever come across anything like a Ferrari.

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

Not people who have "some exposure to it," but rather qualified scientists who have had the opportunity to conduct in-depth study of Wilson's methods -- without which "doubts" simply cannot be "well based [sic]."

From Day One I have publicly called for rigorous scientific testing of Wilson's methods. I continue to do so.

What I want to believe is hardly the point.

What I want others to believe about me is hardly the point.

See?

[Charles Drago]

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.

Help me out, Jim, by being more specific about your "degree in film." Is it a B.A.? Were your studies centered on the history of motion pictures, including technical innovations? Writing for the screen? Or did you earn a B.S. related to, among other subjects, the properties of photographic film with an emphasis on chemistry? What I'm wondering, of course, is how your "degree in film" possibly could be the basis for a significant contribution to a rigid scientific examination of Wilson's method.

As for Mili Cranor, know that she is a dear friend of long standing. I harbor profound respect for her mind. And I guarantee you that she would be the first to acknowledge that A) science can advance in such a way as to challenge the longest, strongest held "givens," B) "if I don't understand it, it can't be real" is a statement driven not by the scientific method, but by ego, and C) fallacious arguments from authority occur when legitimate expertise and expert consensus are not established.

So far, you've established neither.

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.

Which is the equivalent of stating that successfully completing Biology 101 and making a hobby of dissecting frogs qualifies you to pass informed judgment on claimed advances in biochemistry.

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.

See, prior to the formulation and presentation and testing of those ideas, they would have been impossible to grasp, let alone explain.

See, because they wouldn't have existed.

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.

Which is the equivalent of stating that never in all your great-great-grandfathers' years of riding horses did they ever come across anything like a Ferrari.

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

Not people who have "some exposure to it," but rather qualified scientists who have had the opportunity to conduct in-depth study of Wilson's methods -- without which "doubts" simply cannot be "well based [sic]."

From Day One I have publicly called for rigorous scientific testing of Wilson's methods. I continue to do so. What I want to believe is hardly the point.

What I want others to believe about me is hardly the point.

See?

[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

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!

Hi, Albert,

That discussion was on the Education Forum some years ago. I don't know if this is available anywhere, unless the Ed Forum was archived. The term "photonics" or "photoptics" (as best as I can recall, probably "photonics") was used to describe Wilson's method. Hope this helps. Try Google for definition.

Sorry to be late in replying, but I am not at my own computer these days.

Adele

P.S. Albert, the correct term is PHOTONICS for Tom Wilson's works. Photoptics refers to the optics involved in vision of the eyes. Photonics involves all forms of electromagetic radiarion, which includes light, and this is a special branch of physics. Google can supply definitions of photonics and examples of this science.

[Ray Mitcham]

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!

Hi, Albert,

That discussion was on the Education Forum some years ago. I don't know if this is available anywhere, unless the Ed Forum was archived. The term "photonics" or "photoptics" (as best as I can recall, probably "photonics") was used to describe Wilson's method. Hope this helps. Try Google for definition.

Sorry to be late in replying, but I am not at my own computer these days.

Adele

P.S. Albert, the correct term is PHOTONICS for Tom Wilson's works. Photoptics refers to the optics involved in vision of the eyes. Photonics involves all forms of electromagetic radiarion, which includes light, and this is a special branch of physics. Google can supply definitions of photonics and examples of this science.

Hi Adele,

Possibly this is the item on the Ed Forum you are talking about.


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry173997

Ray

[Phil Dragoo]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=14895

New book...A DEEPER DARKER TRUTH

Started by Jack White, Oct 16 2009 04:41 PM

Defense by Jack, Bernice, Adele--and the airbrushed Peter, together with the brazen know-nothing "Colby"--what crude censorship

I found this excellent passage from Jack


BEGIN

Photography is based on a very simple principle.

1. A white base material, usually paper, has a "silver" emulsion spread evenly on its surface
to a precise DEPTH.

2. Exposure to light PENETRATES the depth of the emulsion in proportion to the intensity of the
light falling on it.

3. The photo paper is "developed", removing LAYERS of emulsion in proportion to the amount
of the light exposure.

4. The print is VIEWED by eyes viewing the print in LIGHT WHICH PENETRATES THE THICKNESS
OF THE "SILVER" ON THE PAPER, STRIKING THE PAPER, AND REFLECTING BACK TO THE EYES
THE THICKNESS OF THE VARIOUS LAYERS OF EMULSION.

Anyone who does not understand this LAYERING of tones in a photography cannot possibly
hope to understand Wilson's work.

The eye can only perceive about 20 shades of gray. The computer can easily perceive 256
shades of gray (and even many times that amount).

Jack

END

Hence you take a computer when you're sniffing for drugs, bombs, cadavers, because you're mortal

Tom didn't go from drawing Marvel Comics--he went from analyzing steel--for the guy in Network who foghorned Howard Beale

It's eerie seeing Peter referred to

Colby or "Colby" seems the least interesting man in the world

"I seldom read books, but when I don't, I pan them. Stay ignorant, My Friend."