Dean Hagerman Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Double post Edited November 12, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Very nice Jack Curious deano, just what is "nice" about it and more importantly what is "right"? Perfect way to decide is White is Right or Jack is a Hack... Jacks assesment of Tom Wilson's work is right And dont worry Craig, still going to make my threads on my studies, just a little busy with work, you know that little thing that puts food on the table and a roof over your head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) 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 Edited November 12, 2009 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Very nice Jack Curious deano, just what is "nice" about it and more importantly what is "right"? Perfect way to decide is White is Right or Jack is a Hack... Jacks assesment of Tom Wilson's work is right And dont worry Craig, still going to make my threads on my studies, just a little busy with work, you know that little thing that puts food on the table and a roof over your head? Really how did you verify Jacks assessment of Wilsons works and more to the point how did you verify Jacks statements in the "truck" post? Not hard questions ,or do you just "believe"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian O Connor Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Adele and Jack, I appreciate your taking so much time for me. May I ask if there are any references available to the court cases where Tom Wilsons expertise was called upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 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 So how many emulsion layers does a piece of b/w film have Jack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Since I haven't read the book or much of Wilson's claims I can't say for sure but it seems unlikely a technique designed examine high resolution images of steel to detect faults would be of any use detecting photo alteration of low resolution images or detecting details beyond the resolving power of the original/best quality copy. Jack's test proved nothing, blowing up an image will inevitably reveal detail not viable in less magnified images but IF the date numbers on the plate had been smaller than the grains in the negative no amount of manipulation would make the visible. I'm still waiting for any confirmation 1) Wilson developed a technique to use images to access steel quality 2) the application of his technique to forensic photography has been recognized by others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Since I haven't read the book or much of Wilson's claims I can't say for sure but it seems unlikely a technique designed examine high resolution images of steel to detect faults would be of any use detecting photo alteration of low resolution images or detecting details beyond the resolving power of the original/best quality copy. Jack's test proved nothing, blowing up an image will inevitably reveal detail not viable in less magnified images but IF the date numbers on the plate had been smaller than the grains in the negative no amount of manipulation would make the visible. I'm still waiting for any confirmation 1) Wilson developed a technique to use images to access steel quality 2) the application of his technique to forensic photography has been recognized by others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology ["Doubt is our product"......] In other words, Peter has no meaningful response to my points and questions so resorts to insult. If Wilson's expertise is so beyond doubt, Peter,Dean Jack et.al. should be able respond easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Since I haven't read the book or much of Wilson's claims I can't say for sure but it seems unlikely a technique designed examine high resolution images of steel to detect faults would be of any use detecting photo alteration of low resolution images or detecting details beyond the resolving power of the original/best quality copy. Jack's test proved nothing, blowing up an image will inevitably reveal detail not viable in less magnified images but IF the date numbers on the plate had been smaller than the grains in the negative no amount of manipulation would make the visible. I'm still waiting for any confirmation 1) Wilson developed a technique to use images to access steel quality 2) the application of his technique to forensic photography has been recognized by others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology ["Doubt is our product"......] In other words, Peter has no meaningful response to my points and questions so resorts to insult. If Wilson's expertise is so beyond doubt, Peter,Dean Jack et.al. should be able respond easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Since I haven't read the book or much of Wilson's claims I can't say for sure but it seems unlikely a technique designed examine high resolution images of steel to detect faults would be of any use detecting photo alteration of low resolution images or detecting details beyond the resolving power of the original/best quality copy. Jack's test proved nothing, blowing up an image will inevitably reveal detail not viable in less magnified images but IF the date numbers on the plate had been smaller than the grains in the negative no amount of manipulation would make the visible. I'm still waiting for any confirmation 1) Wilson developed a technique to use images to access steel quality 2) the application of his technique to forensic photography has been recognized by others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology ["Doubt is our product"......] In other words, Peter has no meaningful response to my points and questions so resorts to insult. If Wilson's expertise is so beyond doubt, Peter,Dean Jack et.al. should be able respond easily Well I dont have US Steel's employment records in front of me but it was published that Wilson worked for US Steel for 30 years as a research and development engineer I also read somewhere that at the time of his retirement he had reach the level of Vice President of US Steel, his system one of the reasons for promotion I could be wrong about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 "Fair Play" (Richard Bartholemew), in the middle of review of "Assassination Science": I would be remiss if I did not mention another oversight by Fetzer: his complete omission of the digital photographic photometry experiments of former U.S. Steel scientist Tom Wilson. Those experiments, completed and presented years earlier, but never published, reached many of the same conclusions as Fetzer's contributors (Harrison E. Livingstone, High Treason 2, [New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992], pp. 338-39). I saw both of Wilson's initial public presentations. The first was at the Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy (ASK) in Dallas in 1991. It was a presentation involving charts of mathematical calculations and color slides of computer-processed images. That debut of Wilson's work was videotaped by South by Southwest, the conference organizers, but the quality of the presentation and the video was compromised by a loud party in the next-door ballroom. The two ballrooms were separated by a non-soundproof, movable partition. In what is at best an amazing coincidence, that party was part of a reunion of U.S. Secret Service agents, some of whom had served on Kennedy's Dallas trip. That was learned about three years later by Vince Palamara while interviewing some of those former agents. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0052-VP.TXT **************************************************** Testimony of Thomas Wilson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, Texas -- November 18, 1994 Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR. MARWELL: Mr. Thomas Wilson, please. MR. WILSON: First, I would like to thank the Board for allowing me to come here and make my presentation to you. I am a private citizen, an American citizen, and that is what dictated that I be here today. I have a business which is consulting with image processing, with computer analysis. I am also qualified in Federal Court as an expert in the flow of material as related to entrance and exit wounds in a cadaver from images. I have worked on several cases involving a murder trial, civil suit, and so forth. My findings have resulted in the exhumation of a cadaver to prove that the data was real and verifiable. The cadaver was exhumed, and it was verifiable. The thing that I would like to present to the Board today, and I do not mean to demean any agency, that is not my task, but this is the real world. I have worked for many large corporations, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and I would just like to briefly go through my attempts to get articles from the Archives. In 1991, I visited the Archives and looked at some of the material. I asked for a request for authenticity on several things, and I will just go through a few articles here. On July 2nd, 1991, I wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration. After conferring with people there, and during my visit to the Archives in June, I viewed two three-quarter inch beta films that were the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. During my viewing, I requested an established authenticity of where these films came from, where they were copied, who copied them, and the process in which they were copied. In July 1991, I received a letter from the Archives, and if the Board desires I can have this copied and sent to you at some date: In reply to your letter of July 2nd, we are unable to answer completely all of the questions you posed for us concerning the administrative history and handling of the originals and various copies. It goes on and it discusses the three-quarter inch copies: This copy of the Zapruder film was received as part of the files of the 1978 House Assassination Committee. It is a 16 millimeter enhanced color copy. Now I have to tell you, I just hate the word "enhanced" because enhanced means that somebody has changed something for the human eye, and the human eye just is not good enough to present evidence in a murder case. So here we have enhanced things being used as evidence for the Warren Commission, for the House Assassination Committee, and these people are trying to make an honest determination based on a false image. So they said in their other holdings they have the original 8 millimeter film held as a courtesy and so forth, and so on. The final paragraph says: You must realize that while we can trace the providence and our continuous possession of these materials since they arrived in our custody, we cannot after these many years provide names, dates, types of equipment, or copying processes. Well, these are the images of the assassination of our President. This boggles my mind. On May 8, 1992, I sent a request in. I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. FBI photography expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt to examine the photograph Exhibits 133-A and 133-B. My request is for information on the photograph of a person, head removed from the photograph, holding the rifle and simulating the pose in Exhibit 133-A. I asked for a copy of the photograph, name of the person holding the rifle, the title of the person taking the photograph, the type of camera, the film used, the department that developed it. The exact location where the photograph was taken with a reference to north, south, east and west. The reason that I asked this is I have analyzed the so-called "Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph" and have been able to establish the time of day that that photograph was taken through various means, and there is a little -- getting that information. But the interesting part about it is that the FBI reenactment has several qualities within that reenactment that are also in the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph, and this should definitely be explored because there are photographic image anomalies present in both. That was in May 8th, 1992. The National Archives wrote me back on May 26th. They were very responsive. I thought, oh, boy, this is it. Here is what they said: This is in response to your letter, a Freedom of Information Act about the assassination, we can provide a photographic print of the Commission Exhibit that you specified at a cost of $6.25. Very efficient, it got me exactly what I wanted. This is the photograph that I am referring to. Now comes the Catch-22. I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992. I said: Gentlemen, I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I talked about Mr. Shaneyfelt's analyses. As far as I can tell, and I have his deposition, this is the one gentleman who did the best he could to analyze the information that he had and determine the shots and so forth, and the fake or not fake photographs. I asked the same questions of the FBI. On August 22nd, 1992, I got a letter back. This is in reference to your request -- this is astounding to me, and I think the Board should certainly look into this matter -- efforts were made by FOIA personnel who are familiar with the JFK assassination documents and they have been unsuccessful in locating the photograph, the one I just showed you. The FBI does not have the personnel resources available to conduct the research necessary to locate the photograph you described. The records we currently have processed under the provisions of FOIA are 202,134 pages. If you would please enclose a check for $20,203.40, we will send this information to you. Now honest researchers trying to get information, and I have worked for some big companies, believe me, I can see what happened. Well, I didn't have the $20,000 or I think I would have sent it just to see what happened. Okay, so then I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992, and I asked them -- I told them where I found the Shaneyfelt exhibit. I told them they could have it in file so-and-so for $6.52. I wasn't being facetious. I was trying to make a point that I am desperate for evidence. No reply. Then in January 8th, 1993, I wrote a letter to Mr. O'Brien, at the FBI -- Chief of the FOI Section, excuse me, and the purpose of the letter is to inquire into the status of my request that I just mentioned. So months have gone by. I would like to take this opportunity to again request your assistance on Item H since Mr. Shaneyfelt did the analysis on the Oswald backyard photograph and the rifle, your Department must have a file under his name. I am only interested in the FBI files containing his analyses, techniques, data and testimony on the photograph and the rifle. I got a letter back saying that there are 84 pages of documents they will send me at no charge because someone else had asked this first and they had it. So I get the impression that the only reason I got 84 pages is because I am number two. If were number one, I would not have gotten this. And this was free of charge, including transportation. So I am starting to wonder, I realize our government is trying to help, but this is getting to be a little bit ridiculous. They also sent an explanation of the exemptions, and there are many exemptions. One of the exemptions is listed, in the interest of national defense, and would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations. In August of 1993 I got another letter saying that they are sending me the 16 photographs, but I never really got the data. That brings me up-to-date with why I am really here. First off, I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to see the analyses by the FBI of the photographs that they have in question on this assassination. I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to go into the Archives and look at the autopsy photos. I have a request in to Mr. Burke Marshall for eight months, and I don't want to embarrass Mr. Burke Marshall but he got back to me recently and he right now is looking into the possibility of letting me go into the Archives to look at the autopsy photographs. If the information contained in the FBI analyses is security-wise, then I would ask for a security clearance as a United States citizen to look at this material, because what has happened is, for the first five years of looking into this situation, and I was drawn into this completely by accident -- I am not a research buff, I am an engineer. I work with the facts, I don't have a theory. Since the 25th anniversary I have found out several things. For instance, Mr. Mack was talking about the Mary Moorman photo. I can verify absolutely with hard scientific data that there is a shooter up there on the Knoll, no question about it. Mr. Mack and Mr. White are the fathers of that finding and I will verify that. But in the last years, when I tried to bring this to the public's attention, I decided, you know, you can go and you can prove that Mr. Oswald did this, he didn't do this, all these theories, I am going to concentrate on one thing, the head wound. That is all I am going to talk about, and I want to tell you what I have and what I would like to do about giving this evidence up. I have chain of evidence photographs that were held by private citizens since their inception. They have been signed and dated. Everyone that has touched these photographs is a part of the chain of evidence. This chain of evidence brings out three things that I am going to bring to the State of Texas because Mr. Kennedy, our President, was murdered in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was here in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned for the murder of the President. As I understand, now I have never seen an official document, but I have certainly read a lot, he was arraigned for murder in Texas. Now I am going to bring hard scientific proof, chain of evidence photographs, data of everything I have done, all of the protocol that I have used which can be reproduced by any agency of the government anywhere, and I am going to bring that in the next few months. It is going to prove three things positively. Number one, Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head. If the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head is the fatal shot, then there is a still a murderer on the loose. I am going to prove the direction that the missile came into his head, and the damage that was done within the head from these images as chain of evidence, and I am going to prove what happened to the missile when it struck President in the right front forehead. Now, there are three things that I would please request the Board to do. Number one, these documents are in various places, so if something happens to Tom Wilson I want to assure you that this will go forward, and I am not joking. Number two, I want to let you know that when this evidence is brought forth in Dallas, and there are some people that are going to make the arrangements for me, I would offer the Board, any government agency, to participate in this, and I would particularly like you to take my message back to the Senators from my State, Senator Specter, Senator Wolford and Rick Santorum who is going to be the next Senator. I can't speak for Marina Porter, Marina Oswald Porter, but I want to tell you that this woman had the right to know did her husband or did her husband not fire the fatal shot. I don't know anything else about Mr. Oswald, so I am going to request that she get in touch with her Senator from Texas, and when this evidence is submitted it will all be done in a public forum. If there is anything I can help you, the Board Members, or anything between now and when this is submitted, I will be very happy to do so, but I have the proof, I have it documented, it can be verified, and it is not a theory. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Questions? DR. HALL: Yes, I have a question. What is the status of your FOIA request now? MR. WILSON: As of right now, I have not gotten anything from the FBI about seeing Mr. Shaneyfelt's files. I even telephoned down there. They were very cooperative, don't misunderstand me, but I said, is Mr. Shaneyfelt still alive, because you know we are all getting gray hair, we are going over the hill here, but I said I can even have an interview with him. I really want to see -- I have to say to you that after 30 years of working with this, working on everything in the industrial to tremendous forensic work, the things that I see in his analysis, I don't follow him, but that was 30 years ago, and it is wrong, it is flawed, and they will not let me have access to that file. I have it on appeal. DR. HALL: What I think would be very helpful to us is if you could provide us a list of the FOIA requests you have made and the status of those requests as you understand them at the moment, including, of course, to whom they were directed. MR. WILSON: Okay. Should I send it to the same address that I sent my initial letter? DR. HALL: Dr. Marwell will do the job for you. MR. WILSON: I will do that when I get back home shortly. DR. NELSON: I would like to add, Mr. Wilson, that our statute does not have the same exemptions as Freedom of Information Act. It has more exemptions than our statute does. You might want to compare the two of them when you start looking for exemptions, or postponement in this case. MR. WILSON: How do I get a copy of this? DR. NELSON: It should be in any library that has government documents. Mr. Marwell can provide you with that. MR. WILSON: If you would send it to me, I would appreciate it, yes. DR. NELSON: That is a difference in what will be postponed. There is a difference between being exempt, being totally exempted and postponed also. Under our statute we postpone. MR. WILSON: I realize that your task here also was to locate these images, okay, and rightfully so, but you understand these images cannot be given up until they have been presented as a chain of evidence in a murder trial, but believe me they are all documented and verifiable. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: We will look forward to that. MR. MARWELL: These images that you described, have they been seen by anyone else? MR. WILSON: They have been seen by the person that owns them, and they have been by Dr. Sillwyck. MR. MARWELL: But they are previously unknown to the general public? MR. WILSON: Let's say this, they are all known. All these photographs are nothing that hasn't been available through whatever, but these are chain of evidence photographs. See in the House Committee, when they had the X-rays enhanced for the Assassination Committee, I have a copy of the frontal X-ray and I can see the terminology down there, and immediately I know how this X-ray was -- I will use the word "enhanced." Believe me, you don't ever want to use enhanced in this type of thing. I can see where they have done -- and I am not bringing in the technical jargon -- but they have done things to average data and when you average data you don't have the right thing. So I would like to see the 1978 House Committee, how are they going to analyze it? I understand they hired private firms. If this is really -- I can't believe that what I am doing now, and I am sure I am up to the government's status here as far as technology, maybe a little bit ahead. I just came from Comdex where Norgate has talked about some things in the future that I have done in the past couple of years. But if I could get to see how the House Committee analyzed those X-rays, if it is detrimental to our country, I would go for a secret clearance, and I would not divulge it, but I have to see it. I cannot rest until I see this. MR. MARWELL: Could you just give us an idea of what you mean by chain of evidence? MR. WILSON: Yes. In any trial, if you have a piece of evidence, let's say I got shot, and this is my coat and I have a hole in it. Well, if somebody takes this coat, they put it in a bag and they sign, I received this coat, so forth and so on, and date it and sign it. Now forensics wants to look at this hole and see where the hole came in or out, so they take this coat and they give it to John Smith. John Smith signs it and dates it, so that everywhere that here this piece of evidence has been, it knows exactly who had it and when they had it and where they had it. These photographs have never left the chain of evidence, and I must say that these photographs have been shown throughout the world for 30 years, everybody has looked at them, and they never saw what is in them. Our eyes just aren't good enough. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index68.htm All Witnesses Before the AARB. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index.htm#index ********************* On the TMWKK video.....Mr.Wison also shows his research........he analysed what he had found on his first trip to Dealey.. He went back a second time, as his findings showed him that a shot on a upward angle, trajectory had hit the President in the head... He redid his studies, and obtaiined the same results... B...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 "Fair Play" (Richard Bartholemew), in the middle of review of "Assassination Science": I would be remiss if I did not mention another oversight by Fetzer: his complete omission of the digital photographic photometry experiments of former U.S. Steel scientist Tom Wilson. Those experiments, completed and presented years earlier, but never published, reached many of the same conclusions as Fetzer's contributors (Harrison E. Livingstone, High Treason 2, [New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992], pp. 338-39). I saw both of Wilson's initial public presentations. The first was at the Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy (ASK) in Dallas in 1991. It was a presentation involving charts of mathematical calculations and color slides of computer-processed images. That debut of Wilson's work was videotaped by South by Southwest, the conference organizers, but the quality of the presentation and the video was compromised by a loud party in the next-door ballroom. The two ballrooms were separated by a non-soundproof, movable partition. In what is at best an amazing coincidence, that party was part of a reunion of U.S. Secret Service agents, some of whom had served on Kennedy's Dallas trip. That was learned about three years later by Vince Palamara while interviewing some of those former agents. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0052-VP.TXT **************************************************** Testimony of Thomas Wilson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, Texas -- November 18, 1994 Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR. MARWELL: Mr. Thomas Wilson, please. MR. WILSON: First, I would like to thank the Board for allowing me to come here and make my presentation to you. I am a private citizen, an American citizen, and that is what dictated that I be here today. I have a business which is consulting with image processing, with computer analysis. I am also qualified in Federal Court as an expert in the flow of material as related to entrance and exit wounds in a cadaver from images. I have worked on several cases involving a murder trial, civil suit, and so forth. My findings have resulted in the exhumation of a cadaver to prove that the data was real and verifiable. The cadaver was exhumed, and it was verifiable. The thing that I would like to present to the Board today, and I do not mean to demean any agency, that is not my task, but this is the real world. I have worked for many large corporations, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and I would just like to briefly go through my attempts to get articles from the Archives. In 1991, I visited the Archives and looked at some of the material. I asked for a request for authenticity on several things, and I will just go through a few articles here. On July 2nd, 1991, I wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration. After conferring with people there, and during my visit to the Archives in June, I viewed two three-quarter inch beta films that were the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. During my viewing, I requested an established authenticity of where these films came from, where they were copied, who copied them, and the process in which they were copied. In July 1991, I received a letter from the Archives, and if the Board desires I can have this copied and sent to you at some date: In reply to your letter of July 2nd, we are unable to answer completely all of the questions you posed for us concerning the administrative history and handling of the originals and various copies. It goes on and it discusses the three-quarter inch copies: This copy of the Zapruder film was received as part of the files of the 1978 House Assassination Committee. It is a 16 millimeter enhanced color copy. Now I have to tell you, I just hate the word "enhanced" because enhanced means that somebody has changed something for the human eye, and the human eye just is not good enough to present evidence in a murder case. So here we have enhanced things being used as evidence for the Warren Commission, for the House Assassination Committee, and these people are trying to make an honest determination based on a false image. So they said in their other holdings they have the original 8 millimeter film held as a courtesy and so forth, and so on. The final paragraph says: You must realize that while we can trace the providence and our continuous possession of these materials since they arrived in our custody, we cannot after these many years provide names, dates, types of equipment, or copying processes. Well, these are the images of the assassination of our President. This boggles my mind. On May 8, 1992, I sent a request in. I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. FBI photography expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt to examine the photograph Exhibits 133-A and 133-B. My request is for information on the photograph of a person, head removed from the photograph, holding the rifle and simulating the pose in Exhibit 133-A. I asked for a copy of the photograph, name of the person holding the rifle, the title of the person taking the photograph, the type of camera, the film used, the department that developed it. The exact location where the photograph was taken with a reference to north, south, east and west. The reason that I asked this is I have analyzed the so-called "Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph" and have been able to establish the time of day that that photograph was taken through various means, and there is a little -- getting that information. But the interesting part about it is that the FBI reenactment has several qualities within that reenactment that are also in the Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photograph, and this should definitely be explored because there are photographic image anomalies present in both. That was in May 8th, 1992. The National Archives wrote me back on May 26th. They were very responsive. I thought, oh, boy, this is it. Here is what they said: This is in response to your letter, a Freedom of Information Act about the assassination, we can provide a photographic print of the Commission Exhibit that you specified at a cost of $6.25. Very efficient, it got me exactly what I wanted. This is the photograph that I am referring to. Now comes the Catch-22. I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992. I said: Gentlemen, I have a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I talked about Mr. Shaneyfelt's analyses. As far as I can tell, and I have his deposition, this is the one gentleman who did the best he could to analyze the information that he had and determine the shots and so forth, and the fake or not fake photographs. I asked the same questions of the FBI. On August 22nd, 1992, I got a letter back. This is in reference to your request -- this is astounding to me, and I think the Board should certainly look into this matter -- efforts were made by FOIA personnel who are familiar with the JFK assassination documents and they have been unsuccessful in locating the photograph, the one I just showed you. The FBI does not have the personnel resources available to conduct the research necessary to locate the photograph you described. The records we currently have processed under the provisions of FOIA are 202,134 pages. If you would please enclose a check for $20,203.40, we will send this information to you. Now honest researchers trying to get information, and I have worked for some big companies, believe me, I can see what happened. Well, I didn't have the $20,000 or I think I would have sent it just to see what happened. Okay, so then I wrote to the Director of FBI on June 5th, 1992, and I asked them -- I told them where I found the Shaneyfelt exhibit. I told them they could have it in file so-and-so for $6.52. I wasn't being facetious. I was trying to make a point that I am desperate for evidence. No reply. Then in January 8th, 1993, I wrote a letter to Mr. O'Brien, at the FBI -- Chief of the FOI Section, excuse me, and the purpose of the letter is to inquire into the status of my request that I just mentioned. So months have gone by. I would like to take this opportunity to again request your assistance on Item H since Mr. Shaneyfelt did the analysis on the Oswald backyard photograph and the rifle, your Department must have a file under his name. I am only interested in the FBI files containing his analyses, techniques, data and testimony on the photograph and the rifle. I got a letter back saying that there are 84 pages of documents they will send me at no charge because someone else had asked this first and they had it. So I get the impression that the only reason I got 84 pages is because I am number two. If were number one, I would not have gotten this. And this was free of charge, including transportation. So I am starting to wonder, I realize our government is trying to help, but this is getting to be a little bit ridiculous. They also sent an explanation of the exemptions, and there are many exemptions. One of the exemptions is listed, in the interest of national defense, and would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations. In August of 1993 I got another letter saying that they are sending me the 16 photographs, but I never really got the data. That brings me up-to-date with why I am really here. First off, I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to see the analyses by the FBI of the photographs that they have in question on this assassination. I feel that it is absolutely necessary for me to go into the Archives and look at the autopsy photos. I have a request in to Mr. Burke Marshall for eight months, and I don't want to embarrass Mr. Burke Marshall but he got back to me recently and he right now is looking into the possibility of letting me go into the Archives to look at the autopsy photographs. If the information contained in the FBI analyses is security-wise, then I would ask for a security clearance as a United States citizen to look at this material, because what has happened is, for the first five years of looking into this situation, and I was drawn into this completely by accident -- I am not a research buff, I am an engineer. I work with the facts, I don't have a theory. Since the 25th anniversary I have found out several things. For instance, Mr. Mack was talking about the Mary Moorman photo. I can verify absolutely with hard scientific data that there is a shooter up there on the Knoll, no question about it. Mr. Mack and Mr. White are the fathers of that finding and I will verify that. But in the last years, when I tried to bring this to the public's attention, I decided, you know, you can go and you can prove that Mr. Oswald did this, he didn't do this, all these theories, I am going to concentrate on one thing, the head wound. That is all I am going to talk about, and I want to tell you what I have and what I would like to do about giving this evidence up. I have chain of evidence photographs that were held by private citizens since their inception. They have been signed and dated. Everyone that has touched these photographs is a part of the chain of evidence. This chain of evidence brings out three things that I am going to bring to the State of Texas because Mr. Kennedy, our President, was murdered in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was here in Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned for the murder of the President. As I understand, now I have never seen an official document, but I have certainly read a lot, he was arraigned for murder in Texas. Now I am going to bring hard scientific proof, chain of evidence photographs, data of everything I have done, all of the protocol that I have used which can be reproduced by any agency of the government anywhere, and I am going to bring that in the next few months. It is going to prove three things positively. Number one, Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head. If the shot that hit President Kennedy in the head is the fatal shot, then there is a still a murderer on the loose. I am going to prove the direction that the missile came into his head, and the damage that was done within the head from these images as chain of evidence, and I am going to prove what happened to the missile when it struck President in the right front forehead. Now, there are three things that I would please request the Board to do. Number one, these documents are in various places, so if something happens to Tom Wilson I want to assure you that this will go forward, and I am not joking. Number two, I want to let you know that when this evidence is brought forth in Dallas, and there are some people that are going to make the arrangements for me, I would offer the Board, any government agency, to participate in this, and I would particularly like you to take my message back to the Senators from my State, Senator Specter, Senator Wolford and Rick Santorum who is going to be the next Senator. I can't speak for Marina Porter, Marina Oswald Porter, but I want to tell you that this woman had the right to know did her husband or did her husband not fire the fatal shot. I don't know anything else about Mr. Oswald, so I am going to request that she get in touch with her Senator from Texas, and when this evidence is submitted it will all be done in a public forum. If there is anything I can help you, the Board Members, or anything between now and when this is submitted, I will be very happy to do so, but I have the proof, I have it documented, it can be verified, and it is not a theory. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Questions? DR. HALL: Yes, I have a question. What is the status of your FOIA request now? MR. WILSON: As of right now, I have not gotten anything from the FBI about seeing Mr. Shaneyfelt's files. I even telephoned down there. They were very cooperative, don't misunderstand me, but I said, is Mr. Shaneyfelt still alive, because you know we are all getting gray hair, we are going over the hill here, but I said I can even have an interview with him. I really want to see -- I have to say to you that after 30 years of working with this, working on everything in the industrial to tremendous forensic work, the things that I see in his analysis, I don't follow him, but that was 30 years ago, and it is wrong, it is flawed, and they will not let me have access to that file. I have it on appeal. DR. HALL: What I think would be very helpful to us is if you could provide us a list of the FOIA requests you have made and the status of those requests as you understand them at the moment, including, of course, to whom they were directed. MR. WILSON: Okay. Should I send it to the same address that I sent my initial letter? DR. HALL: Dr. Marwell will do the job for you. MR. WILSON: I will do that when I get back home shortly. DR. NELSON: I would like to add, Mr. Wilson, that our statute does not have the same exemptions as Freedom of Information Act. It has more exemptions than our statute does. You might want to compare the two of them when you start looking for exemptions, or postponement in this case. MR. WILSON: How do I get a copy of this? DR. NELSON: It should be in any library that has government documents. Mr. Marwell can provide you with that. MR. WILSON: If you would send it to me, I would appreciate it, yes. DR. NELSON: That is a difference in what will be postponed. There is a difference between being exempt, being totally exempted and postponed also. Under our statute we postpone. MR. WILSON: I realize that your task here also was to locate these images, okay, and rightfully so, but you understand these images cannot be given up until they have been presented as a chain of evidence in a murder trial, but believe me they are all documented and verifiable. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: We will look forward to that. MR. MARWELL: These images that you described, have they been seen by anyone else? MR. WILSON: They have been seen by the person that owns them, and they have been by Dr. Sillwyck. MR. MARWELL: But they are previously unknown to the general public? MR. WILSON: Let's say this, they are all known. All these photographs are nothing that hasn't been available through whatever, but these are chain of evidence photographs. See in the House Committee, when they had the X-rays enhanced for the Assassination Committee, I have a copy of the frontal X-ray and I can see the terminology down there, and immediately I know how this X-ray was -- I will use the word "enhanced." Believe me, you don't ever want to use enhanced in this type of thing. I can see where they have done -- and I am not bringing in the technical jargon -- but they have done things to average data and when you average data you don't have the right thing. So I would like to see the 1978 House Committee, how are they going to analyze it? I understand they hired private firms. If this is really -- I can't believe that what I am doing now, and I am sure I am up to the government's status here as far as technology, maybe a little bit ahead. I just came from Comdex where Norgate has talked about some things in the future that I have done in the past couple of years. But if I could get to see how the House Committee analyzed those X-rays, if it is detrimental to our country, I would go for a secret clearance, and I would not divulge it, but I have to see it. I cannot rest until I see this. MR. MARWELL: Could you just give us an idea of what you mean by chain of evidence? MR. WILSON: Yes. In any trial, if you have a piece of evidence, let's say I got shot, and this is my coat and I have a hole in it. Well, if somebody takes this coat, they put it in a bag and they sign, I received this coat, so forth and so on, and date it and sign it. Now forensics wants to look at this hole and see where the hole came in or out, so they take this coat and they give it to John Smith. John Smith signs it and dates it, so that everywhere that here this piece of evidence has been, it knows exactly who had it and when they had it and where they had it. These photographs have never left the chain of evidence, and I must say that these photographs have been shown throughout the world for 30 years, everybody has looked at them, and they never saw what is in them. Our eyes just aren't good enough. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index68.htm All Witnesses Before the AARB. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index.htm#index ********************* On the TMWKK video.....Mr.Wison also shows his research........he analysed what he had found on his first trip to Dealey.. He went back a second time, as his findings showed him that a shot on a upward angle, trajectory had hit the President in the head... He redid his studies, and obtaiined the same results... B...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) Subject: "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" ------------------ The show was simply superb - one of the best done documentaries on the assassination I've seen in some time. It was actually done as the 6th in the Nigel Turner (BBC) series: 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' and this was entitled (appropriately): 'The Truth Shall Set You Free'. The presentation opened with brief excerpts from Marina Oswald, and others - as to how the subsequent coverup has corrupted and undermined the country - giving rise to an ongoing and fundamental cynicism that is unrelenting.. Particular anger emanated from a Mr. Tannenbaum - who had been one of the counsels working with the House and Senate Assassinations Committee in 1978, and who had left when it became obvious the Committee was 'kowtowing' to the executive intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) whom he referred to as resisting their requests for information every step of the way. There followed a series of vignettes - each featuring a person who - through their investigations, research, released information - have shed light on the dark corners of this event/ The first was Tom Wilson - with 30 years experience using imaging and photonics techniques in the steel industry. He has now applied this techniques - along with computer enhancement - to examine again the Zapruder film. What was revealed - using high resolution pixel imaging and Fourier analysis - was nothing short of amazing. In the head shot frame - for example - one could actually see, with Wilson's techniques- the image of the bullet, inside JFK's skull and its *track* moving from the FRONT to the REAR of the skull. Undeniable high level, high quality evidence that the shot did indeed come from the front - as we have been maintaining all along. Showing the detailed iamgery, Wilson himself found his eyes welling with tears. One could sense his painful awareness of the lies and distortions we've been fed all these years, co-mingling with his frustration that up to now none of 'officialdom' has taken his work seriously or at least tried to replicate it. He also indicated that on going to Dealey Plaza and attempting to reconstruct the placement of all key people, etc. he could not get things to fit - with the motion of the bullet seen in his imagery. However, on further inspection - and on locating a storm sewer cover at the side of Elm St. - he found that the problem was solved and indeed the shot could only have been made from that location (the fatal head shot). This was confirmed by Jack Brazil and a military team he put together in 1992, who found: a) a man could easily fit inside the storm sewer drain and have an openh view onto Elm St. and a good shot at the motorcade. the man could easily make his escape (in something like 20-23 minutes) by following out the storm sewer to the Trinity River - making his way clear and free. The scenes tracing the sewer escape route were sobering indeed - and show that indeed, the killing could be carried out as a perfect crime, with the perpetrators getting away scott free. After the Brazil demo, Tom Wilson was seen again - now examining the autopsy photos with his techniques and comparing them with the photonic/pixel densities in the head of JFK as disclosed in the pristine Mary Moorman photo (aimed toward the GK, JFK's head visible from the rear). His imaging analysis showed where genuine human tissue was located in the autopsy film- by comparing it with pixel densities in the pre-autopsy condition (as exposed from the Moorman film). What was revealed was nothing less than startling: massive sections of 'fake' material covering nearly the entire rear of JFK's head (Wilson referred to it was Mortician's plaster). This same material was also used in the front of the head, to cover the entrance wound there.. Wilson's fine work, and detailed analysis, showed also what many of us have been saying all along - that the autopsy photos are indeed fakes. Attention then shifted to Lt. Col. Dan Marvin, with 15 years experience as a paratrooper and eight combat campaigns. He has 21 awards and decorations and servied in the Elite Special Forces, the Green Berets. He had volunteered for Special Forces Guerilla Training at Fort Bragg, NC only several weeks after the assassination. He noted also that nearly all the instruction techniques at the 'Guerrila Warfare School' was classified. The most secret of all - conducted within an enclosed and wire fence perimeter - was that dealing with terrorism and assassinations. His instructors in this phase noted how the JFK assassination was "a classic example of the way to organize a program to eliminate a head of state while 'pointing the finger' at a lone assassin" (His words). He noted that this also included a mock layout of Dealey Plaza indicating where all the shooters were located. He indicated that he and other trainees had also been told point blank that 'Oswald was not involved- he was set up'. He also recalled the remark in passing of one of the CIA instructors to another : "Things really did go well in Dealey Plaza that day, didn't they?" Marvin's segment ended by recalling how in 1965 he was asked to kill a Naval person in the States- a William Bruce Pitzer. He refused, of course, but suspects that someone else he knew took the job. Not long thereafter- Pitzer (who was a Visual Aids officer at Bethesda - and had the actual film footage of the autopsy) was found dead with a .38 in his right hand and a gunshot wound to the head. (A later climp interviews Pitzer's Petty Officer assistant who noted that this was odd since Pitzer had always been left-handed, and indeed had been kidded in card games for 'dealing the wrong way around'.) The presentation concludes by interviewing two other researchers who have - based on released documents- shown how the original assassination plots directed at Castro, were re-directed at JFK in something called 'Operation Freedom'. They even have documented evidence that RFK called one of the leaders of this group and said to his 'you did this to my brother.' Daeron Link long gone... ******************* See..... The Basics of Photogrammetry http://www.geodetic.com/whatis.htm The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Part 6 - 1 of 5 10:02 - Part 6: 1 of 5 "The Truth Shall Make You Free" http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/..._Killed_Kennedy B.. Edited November 13, 2009 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) He was Vice President of USS's Engineering Division - not of the whole company. Yes, his innovative work much of the reason for his promotions. Perhaps true but no evidence to that effect has been posted other than his own claims. Even if true the claimed applicability of such a method to analyzing assassination images seems rather farfetched. It is absurd to 'respond' to the 'demands' of someone who knows nothing about the JFK case, Since I am far from ignorant about the case you’re starting with a fallacy, what else is new? …only that those who question the 'official' version of it should be presented in the 'light of doubt' [an old trick - and interestingly the same trick his father was involved in with the tobacco industry]. Actually presenting people who disagree with you in the 'light of doubt' is one of your favorite tricks which is why you repeatedly called them (us) Nazi’s, insinuate (or say outright) they are ‘disnfo agents’ working for an intel agency or in my case attack their family members, something which John said was "despicable" (when Terry did it). Further, someone who doesn't even read the book first, to see if any of the 'questions' are answered there It’s an obscure self published book, its Amazon sales rank is 128,061 and its 110,174 at Barnes and Noble, pretty sluggish especially for a just released book. Perhaps if evidence of Wilson’s expertise were presented people would be more likely to read it. or elsewhere on the internet I looked and found couldn’t find any evidence of his claimed expertise even other Wilson threads on this Forum. There’s only one other Wilson thread here and there no evidence of his expertise was presented there either. Even in the MWKK transcript Bernice pointed they only spoke of his work with USS http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9508 Instead, busywork is 'assigned and petulantly demanded' “Just asking questions” like truhers like to say, if his expertise were so established posting evidence of it wouldn’t be busy work. The guy has a history of making claims that aren’t credible. Such as saying 1) Due to an intro letter from Ted Kennedy he was granted access to the Archives secret stash of assassination images. 2) That stash includes ‘unaltered’ and intermediate copies of autopsy photos and X-rays 3) He made copies of these and gave them to three different peo´ple Honest doubt has its place in research and debate. If you really believed that you would have no problems answering my questions, yet you spend more time, energy and forum band with making excuses not to answer than posting a real answer if you had one Edited November 13, 2009 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Wilson seems to have been a first rate crackpot his claims to have seen and made copies of undoctored autopsy photos simply aren't credible. Though he claimstohave leftcopies w/4different people they forreasons unknow have never appeared. Additionally on another thead Dean posted a scan of a page from ADDT in which Phillips says he claimed to have ID the time one of the backyard photos was taken with in a minute based on highlights on LHO's shoes but the time he calculated is at complete variance with Oswald's shadow I posted this under the Fair use act for research purposes only Craig if you want to see more of Toms work I can scan it and send it to you in a PM or Email Dean Wilson was a fool or a fraud at 9:13 AM on March 31, 1963 the suns azimuth was 110.9 degrees (east of north), i.e. ESE. Any shadows would be at the opposite angle 290.9 i.e. WNW. But the house was to the north and the shadow was is slightly east of due north and thus was taken shortly after solar noon (12:32).At the time Wilson claimed the suns angle was 35.6 degrees thus we would expect a shadow to be almost twice as long as the object itself but we see the opposite LHO’s shadow is less than half his height once again indicating a photo taken around noon. You can appeal to Wilson’s false and unproven authority all you want this is very basic geometry, even if one doesn’t trust the data from the sites below, it is indisputable that 1) the sun rises in the east at about 0 degrees angle, thus shadows are very long and point west 2) the sun will reach it’s maximum angle at solar noon at which time it will point directly towards the equator (i.e. due south in the northern hemisphere) 3) thus as solar noon approaches shadows will shorten and veer northwards 4) the sun sets in the west at an angle of about 0 degrees 5) thus as the day progresses from (solar) noon to sunset angles will lengthen and veer eastwards Sun angle data from http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php Matching data can be found here http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astr...fl=-1&day=1 I'm sure his acolytes will claim, as usual, he was a forensic photo expert. I have a few questions for them. - Supposedly he served as an expert witness in court cases, please cite any cases in which he was recognized as photo analyst. - If his methods were what he claimed they would have be profound advances both in forensic photography and industrial quality control, the appropriate place to divulge such advances would have been in technical journals, cite any journal articles which describe his techniques. Barring that any press accounts describing his methods. - They also would have been very useful to law enforcement,cite any agencies that use use his techniques, - AFAIK no copies of his "software" have been found, is that correct? If so how do you explain this? If not who has them (it)and are they available for independent evaluation? I'm also curious when did he retire from US Steel and when did he pass away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now