New book...A DEEPER DARKER TRUTH

[Brian O Connor]

Finally got hold of the book, but have to say I`m disappointed with the explanation of the science behind the technology.

Surely a chapter proving the system should be included.

I'd have to agree. I am not yet finished with the book but so far I am finding the science behind it somewhat dubious. For one thing, Wilson appears to have not used any original photographs or negatives for his analysis ... he is using copies out of books and VHS tapes. Would be interested to hear further discussion about all of this.

Completely wrong! .....

Further, I'm a scientist, and there is nothing wrong with his science or technique, in theory. I don't know where you got that he used photos out of books or tapes.....you ought to question that source of information....as they are either mis-informed or working hard at disinfo against Tom. Tom Wilson was meticulous to a fault! The book doesn't go into details on his technique nor meticulousness. I know it first-hand.

It is meant as a book the general public can also understand and appreciate. He was approved to use his techniques as an expert witness in court cases! Further, U.S. Steel had him using his technique for steel quality control for many years until his retirement!...put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Hi Jonathan, and Hi Peter, the problem is I`m not a scientist, and while I believe you Peter when you say you know Toms meticulousness first hand, that isn't the point. He didn't need to write the book for you; you already understand the process.

I need to understand a bit more and like most lay people who don't have your expertise, I need a little more than faith in your word to go on.

I am not questioning your integrity, simply pointing out that the public aren't going to appreciate his work without understanding the science behind it.

[Adele Edisen]

Finally got hold of the book, but have to say I`m disappointed with the explanation of the science behind the technology.

Surely a chapter proving the system should be included.

I'd have to agree. I am not yet finished with the book but so far I am finding the science behind it somewhat dubious. For one thing, Wilson appears to have not used any original photographs or negatives for his analysis ... he is using copies out of books and VHS tapes. Would be interested to hear further discussion about all of this.

Completely wrong! .....

Further, I'm a scientist, and there is nothing wrong with his science or technique, in theory. I don't know where you got that he used photos out of books or tapes.....you ought to question that source of information....as they are either mis-informed or working hard at disinfo against Tom. Tom Wilson was meticulous to a fault! The book doesn't go into details on his technique nor meticulousness. I know it first-hand.

It is meant as a book the general public can also understand and appreciate. He was approved to use his techniques as an expert witness in court cases! Further, U.S. Steel had him using his technique for steel quality control for many years until his retirement!...put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Hi Jonathan, and Hi Peter, the problem is I`m not a scientist, and while I believe you Peter when you say you know Toms meticulousness first hand, that isn't the point. He didn't need to write the book for you; you already understand the process.

I need to understand a bit more and like most lay people who don't have your expertise, I need a little more than faith in your word to go on.

I am not questioning your integrity, simply pointing out that the public aren't going to appreciate his work without understanding the science behind it.

I'm fully aware of the complexity of both his methodology and its perception by the average person. Why, however, do the 'average public' usually trust a trained person working for the government without 'further explanation', but not [usually] someone who comes to a scientific conclusions at odds with the 'powers that be'?! Actually, there is a project to make Wilson's methodology more accessible to the public - but it will not be manifest for quite some time yet. I'll try to find some references [though they will be technical! I did post one here on the Wilson tread long ago.] that are on the general scientific principles behind this. In its simplest form, realize that a computer/optical devices, etc. can see more of the spectrum, more detail and more differences in color or shades of gray than can the eye. It is not magic, it is science, and not a whole lot different than the photo enhancement techniques used by, say NASA of other scientists, and others at looking at objects less controversial. Those detailed databases [that were once photos] can then be manipulated by the computer in various ways, giving 2D and 3D, even layer-stripping views; though the details of how this is done is a tad complex. Another thing he did was to compile a huge self-made database of reflective properties of known substances [different substances of different colors and brightnesses, etc.] and put them into his computer to match against. This way he could have the computer identify a piece of metal, or wax, then the human eye could only see a color. In fact a 'medium gray' piece of metal reflects differently [to the computer - not the eye] than wood; flesh from morticians wax, et al.

For those who have read this book and for those who have not, the following excerpt on page 12 (top) might be enlightening:

"Some of Tom's industrial clients viewed this ability (to "see" through surface layers of steel - my insert - AE) as almost unbelievable, and certainly futuristic in nature. But Tom pointed out that he was snoky employing the same technology that the FBI and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had been using for years. It was all based on photonics, the science and technology of the transmission, control, detection, and measurement of light."

Photons, the little packets of light energy, do occupy space and can penetrate matter between the atoms or molecules which comprise it. Light may br totally absorbed and thereby reflect no light out, or some light may be reflected, or all the light may be relected.

When all the light is absorbed, the material appears to be black. When some light is reflected, the material may appear grayish, and if only certain wavelengths of light are reflected, the material may appear red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet, or some mixture of hues in between. With no light absorbed, the material will look white to us. Tom Wilson's computers, cameras, and electronic measuriong devices were capable of distinguishing 256 different shades of gray between black and white, which the human eye cannot distinguish, except for a few different shades. His system measured photons of light.

Visible light is only one form of electromagnetic radiation, which comprises gamma rays, X-rays, ultrviolet light (invisible to us), visible light, infra-red light (heat), microwaves, television waves, radio waaves, etc. All of these forms of electomagnetic radiation can be detected and measured with the proper instrumentation. They all travel with the same velocity which we commonly know as the speed of light.

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

Finally got hold of the book, but have to say I`m disappointed with the explanation of the science behind the technology.

Surely a chapter proving the system should be included.

I'd have to agree. I am not yet finished with the book but so far I am finding the science behind it somewhat dubious. For one thing, Wilson appears to have not used any original photographs or negatives for his analysis ... he is using copies out of books and VHS tapes. Would be interested to hear further discussion about all of this.

Completely wrong! .....

Further, I'm a scientist, and there is nothing wrong with his science or technique, in theory. I don't know where you got that he used photos out of books or tapes.....you ought to question that source of information....as they are either mis-informed or working hard at disinfo against Tom. Tom Wilson was meticulous to a fault! The book doesn't go into details on his technique nor meticulousness. I know it first-hand.

It is meant as a book the general public can also understand and appreciate. He was approved to use his techniques as an expert witness in court cases! Further, U.S. Steel had him using his technique for steel quality control for many years until his retirement!...put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Hi Jonathan, and Hi Peter, the problem is I`m not a scientist, and while I believe you Peter when you say you know Toms meticulousness first hand, that isn't the point. He didn't need to write the book for you; you already understand the process.

I need to understand a bit more and like most lay people who don't have your expertise, I need a little more than faith in your word to go on.

I am not questioning your integrity, simply pointing out that the public aren't going to appreciate his work without understanding the science behind it.

I'm fully aware of the complexity of both his methodology and its perception by the average person. Why, however, do the 'average public' usually trust a trained person working for the government without 'further explanation', but not [usually] someone who comes to a scientific conclusions at odds with the 'powers that be'?! Actually, there is a project to make Wilson's methodology more accessible to the public - but it will not be manifest for quite some time yet. I'll try to find some references [though they will be technical! I did post one here on the Wilson tread long ago.] that are on the general scientific principles behind this. In its simplest form, realize that a computer/optical devices, etc. can see more of the spectrum, more detail and more differences in color or shades of gray than can the eye. It is not magic, it is science, and not a whole lot different than the photo enhancement techniques used by, say NASA of other scientists, and others at looking at objects less controversial. Those detailed databases [that were once photos] can then be manipulated by the computer in various ways, giving 2D and 3D, even layer-stripping views; though the details of how this is done is a tad complex. Another thing he did was to compile a huge self-made database of reflective properties of known substances [different substances of different colors and brightnesses, etc.] and put them into his computer to match against. This way he could have the computer identify a piece of metal, or wax, then the human eye could only see a color. In fact a 'medium gray' piece of metal reflects differently [to the computer - not the eye] than wood; flesh from morticians wax, et al.

For those who have read this book and for those who have not, the following excerpt on page 12 (top) might be enlightening:

"Some of Tom's industrial clients viewed this ability (to "see" through surface layers of steel - my insert - AE) as almost unbelievable, and certainly futuristic in nature. But Tom pointed out that he was only employing the same technology that the FBI and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had been using for years. It was all based on photonics, the science and technology of the transmission, control, detection, and measurement of light."

Photons, the little packets of light energy, do occupy space and can penetrate matter between the atoms or molecules which comprise it. Light may br totally absorbed and thereby reflect no light out, or some light may be reflected, or all the light may be relected.

When all the light is absorbed, the material appears to be black. When some light is reflected, the material may appear grayish, and if only certain wavelengths of light are reflected, the material may appear red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet, or some mixture of hues in between. With no light absorbed, the material will look white to us. Tom Wilson's computers, cameras, and electronic measuring devices were capable of distinguishing 256 different shades of gray between black and white, which the human eye cannot distinguish, except for a few different shades. His system detected photons of light.

Visible light is only one form of electromagnetic radiation, which comprises gamma rays, X-rays, ultrviolet light (invisible to us), visible light, infra-red light (heat), microwaves, television waves, radio waves, etc. All of these forms of electomagnetic radiation can be detected and measured with the proper instrumentation. They all travel with the same velocity which we commonly know as the speed of light.

Adele

Edited November 10, 2009 by Adele Edisen

[Jack White]

Finally got hold of the book, but have to say I`m disappointed with the explanation of the science behind the technology.

Surely a chapter proving the system should be included.

I'd have to agree. I am not yet finished with the book but so far I am finding the science behind it somewhat dubious. For one thing, Wilson appears to have not used any original photographs or negatives for his analysis ... he is using copies out of books and VHS tapes. Would be interested to hear further discussion about all of this.

Completely wrong! .....

Further, I'm a scientist, and there is nothing wrong with his science or technique, in theory. I don't know where you got that he used photos out of books or tapes.....you ought to question that source of information....as they are either mis-informed or working hard at disinfo against Tom. Tom Wilson was meticulous to a fault! The book doesn't go into details on his technique nor meticulousness. I know it first-hand.

It is meant as a book the general public can also understand and appreciate. He was approved to use his techniques as an expert witness in court cases! Further, U.S. Steel had him using his technique for steel quality control for many years until his retirement!...put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Hi Jonathan, and Hi Peter, the problem is I`m not a scientist, and while I believe you Peter when you say you know Toms meticulousness first hand, that isn't the point. He didn't need to write the book for you; you already understand the process.

I need to understand a bit more and like most lay people who don't have your expertise, I need a little more than faith in your word to go on.

I am not questioning your integrity, simply pointing out that the public aren't going to appreciate his work without understanding the science behind it.

I'm fully aware of the complexity of both his methodology and its perception by the average person. Why, however, do the 'average public' usually trust a trained person working for the government without 'further explanation', but not [usually] someone who comes to a scientific conclusions at odds with the 'powers that be'?! Actually, there is a project to make Wilson's methodology more accessible to the public - but it will not be manifest for quite some time yet. I'll try to find some references [though they will be technical! I did post one here on the Wilson tread long ago.] that are on the general scientific principles behind this. In its simplest form, realize that a computer/optical devices, etc. can see more of the spectrum, more detail and more differences in color or shades of gray than can the eye. It is not magic, it is science, and not a whole lot different than the photo enhancement techniques used by, say NASA of other scientists, and others at looking at objects less controversial. Those detailed databases [that were once photos] can then be manipulated by the computer in various ways, giving 2D and 3D, even layer-stripping views; though the details of how this is done is a tad complex. Another thing he did was to compile a huge self-made database of reflective properties of known substances [different substances of different colors and brightnesses, etc.] and put them into his computer to match against. This way he could have the computer identify a piece of metal, or wax, then the human eye could only see a color. In fact a 'medium gray' piece of metal reflects differently [to the computer - not the eye] than wood; flesh from morticians wax, et al.

For those who have read this book and for those who have not, the following excerpt on page 12 (top) might be enlightening:

"Some of Tom's industrial clients viewed this ability (to "see" through surface layers of steel - my insert - AE) as almost unbelievable, and certainly futuristic in nature. But Tom pointed out that he was only employing the same technology that the FBI and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had been using for years. It was all based on photonics, the science and technology of the transmission, control, detection, and measurement of light."

Photons, the little packets of light energy, do occupy space and can penetrate matter between the atoms or molecules which comprise it. Light may br totally absorbed and thereby reflect no light out, or some light may be reflected, or all the light may be relected.

When all the light is absorbed, the material appears to be black. When some light is reflected, the material may appear grayish, and if only certain wavelengths of light are reflected, the material may appear red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet, or some mixture of hues in between. With no light absorbed, the material will look white to us. Tom Wilson's computers, cameras, and electronic measuring devices were capable of distinguishing 256 different shades of gray between black and white, which the human eye cannot distinguish, except for a few different shades. His system detected photons of light.

Visible light is only one form of electromagnetic radiation, which comprises gamma rays, X-rays, ultrviolet light (invisible to us), visible light, infra-red light (heat), microwaves, television waves, radio waves, etc. All of these forms of electomagnetic radiation can be detected and measured with the proper instrumentation. They all travel with the same velocity which we commonly know as the speed of light.

Adele

Thanks, Adele...for introducing the word PHOTONICS into the discussion. I have spent the last

30 minutes reading about photonics, and what I read WAS EXACTLY THE THINGS TOM TOLD ME,

although I do not recall his ever using that word. He said that the layman does not understand

the properties of light and how light can be used and measured. Much of what he told me was

way over my head, but he told me many times, LIGHT IS LIGHT and however it is recorded, its

properties are locked in and can be discovered, measured, analyzed, magnified, layered and studied.

I urge anyone wanting to understand Tom's work Google PHOTONICS. These exact things were

what Tom described to me, but in the 1980s I had never heard of photonics. His LIGHT VALVE

INVENTION most certainly is an application of this, in which light falling on a receptor could

be reconstituted as a photograph without using a lens. I think some of today's electronics may

use some of this principle.

Jack

[Brian O Connor]

Hi Adele, Jack and Peter, and thanks but... and sorry for being so crass, but wouldn't controlled experiments, carried out under the auspices of an independent 3rd party work just as well , explain the technology and prove the theory:

A badgeman wearing a particular design badge, a cadaver with painted and real wounds, hidden electronic equipment, photos and film altered from the originals, and all tested and exposed using the photonic system.

All I`m saying is that the book, if its meant for the general readership rather than informed experts then this sort of explanation should be /might better have been included.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Brian O Connor

[Jonathan Cohen]

Hi Adele, Jack and Peter, and thanks but... and sorry for being so crass, but wouldn't controlled experiments, carried out under the auspices of an independent 3rd party work just as well , explain the technology and prove the theory:

A badgeman wearing a particular design badge, a cadaver with painted and real wounds, hidden electronic equipment, photos and film altered from the originals, and all tested and exposed using the photonic system.

Very well said, and I agree. I very much want to believe the major claims being made in this book (eyes being painted on to autopsy photographs; Moorman photo altered; Badgeman being real). And while the evidence for them is indeed intriguing, to me it would be much stronger if it could be reproduced in the manner Brian suggests.

[Adele Edisen]

Hi Adele, Jack and Peter, and thanks but... and sorry for being so crass, but wouldn't controlled experiments, carried out under the auspices of an independent 3rd party work just as well , explain the technology and prove the theory:

A badgeman wearing a particular design badge, a cadaver with painted and real wounds, hidden electronic equipment, photos and film altered from the originals, and all tested and exposed using the photonic system.

Very well said, and I agree. I very much want to believe the major claims being made in this book (eyes being painted on to autopsy photographs; Moorman photo altered; Badgeman being real). And while the evidence for them is indeed intriguing, to me it would be much stronger if it could be reproduced in the manner Brian suggests.

I sense doubt for doubt's sake. Few of Tom Wilson's 'claims' have not been 'claimed' by others - often many other researchers - using other methods. Second, his techniques were vetted and approved for use in US Courts as an expert witness. As said, all agree that future work on validating his methodology would be nice and is in the works. It is very complex, expensive and time consuming. For now, you will have to be satisfied without - only that the same basic science is used every day. Of course, if you are only doubting to create doubt you will continue to press your doubts. I'd suggest you do a little more of your own homework on photonics and on Tom Wilson [for example, the part of The Men Who Killed Kennedy that contains him], some of which has been referenced above and on other threads about him. When NASA or other scientists use this few, if any, call for independent reproducing of the experiments. I realize it is a controversial subject, but. I am also informed much on Tom's work by the reaction it has created in those entities that have fought, and all too much succeeded, in the cover-up since 11/22/63. I have alluded to some of that, but choose not to go into greater detail. In the fullness of time, I think his methodology will be found sound and many of his conclusions, as well.

I was about to reply along similar lines as Peter did so elegantly. It would not necessarily give more "proof" or validity to the work that has already been done. Nor would it challenge the results obtained. The instrumentation is valid, the calculations are valid, and the work was done by a very competent engineer, using scientific methods. It would amount to mere repetition, with no new evidence being produced.

If others choose to distrust the methodolgy, then it would be the responsibility of such persons to show and prove that the methods are invalid and the results and conclusions to be incorrect. This is done in science all the time if some error is detected in someone else's work. That is how scientists as a group can achieve the truth in their quests.

Adele

Edited November 11, 2009 by Adele Edisen

[William Kelly]

Hi Adele, Jack and Peter, and thanks but... and sorry for being so crass, but wouldn't controlled experiments, carried out under the auspices of an independent 3rd party work just as well , explain the technology and prove the theory:

A badgeman wearing a particular design badge, a cadaver with painted and real wounds, hidden electronic equipment, photos and film altered from the originals, and all tested and exposed using the photonic system.

Very well said, and I agree. I very much want to believe the major claims being made in this book (eyes being painted on to autopsy photographs; Moorman photo altered; Badgeman being real). And while the evidence for them is indeed intriguing, to me it would be much stronger if it could be reproduced in the manner Brian suggests.

I sense doubt for doubt's sake. Few of Tom Wilson's 'claims' have not been 'claimed' by others - often many other researchers - using other methods. Second, his techniques were vetted and approved for use in US Courts as an expert witness. As said, all agree that future work on validating his methodology would be nice and is in the works. It is very complex, expensive and time consuming. For now, you will have to be satisfied without - only that the same basic science is used every day. Of course, if you are only doubting to create doubt you will continue to press your doubts. I'd suggest you do a little more of your own homework on photonics and on Tom Wilson [for example, the part of The Men Who Killed Kennedy that contains him], some of which has been referenced above and on other threads about him. When NASA or other scientists use this few, if any, call for independent reproducing of the experiments. I realize it is a controversial subject, but. I am also informed much on Tom's work by the reaction it has created in those entities that have fought, and all too much succeeded, in the cover-up since 11/22/63. I have alluded to some of that, but choose not to go into greater detail. In the fullness of time, I think his methodology will be found sound and many of his conclusions, as well.

I was about to reply along similar lines as Peter did so elegantly. It would not necessarily give more "proof" or validity to the work that has already been done. Nor would it challenge the results obtained. The instrumentation is valid, the calculations are valid, and the work was done by a very competent engineer, using scientific methods. It would amount to mere repetition, with no new evidence being produced.

If others choose to distrust the methodolgy, then it would be the responsibility of such persons to show and prove that the methods are invalid and the results and conclusions to be incorrect. This is done in science all the time if some error is detected in someone else's work. That is how scientists as a group can achieve the truth in their quests.

Adele

Yes, Adele,

But we saw and heard Tim Wilson's presentation at the Dallas ASK conference nearly twenty years ago. Wilson said then that any college physics lab could do the same thing then. Why hasn't it been done, yet? At the time I wrote a letter to the head of the Physics dept at Drexel U. in Philly asking him to assign a class to review Wilson's work, but never heard back from them.

When will some people who are familiar with these areas of science apply them to the JFK evidence like Wilson did and try to duplicate his work.

Until that is done it is still mumbo jumbo.

Excuse me for being frustrated over this, but we can't wait another 17 years for somebody to get around to do it.

BK

[Len Colby]

Finally got hold of the book, but have to say I`m disappointed with the explanation of the science behind the technology.

Surely a chapter proving the system should be included.

I'd have to agree. I am not yet finished with the book but so far I am finding the science behind it somewhat dubious. For one thing, Wilson appears to have not used any original photographs or negatives for his analysis ... he is using copies out of books and VHS tapes. Would be interested to hear further discussion about all of this.

Completely wrong! I worked with  him and know others that did, as well. In  my case, as with others, he worked HARD to get the best, most pristine, closest [if not] original photo possible. The originals of most photos are NOT available - another issue that should make one question things. I fought for a year to get a contact print of large negative and had to do it by the 'back door' - the official response was 'NO!'. I gave my contact print to him to work on...the best available. Further, I'm a scientist, and there is nothing wrong with his science or technique, in theory.

Classic example of an appeal to(false) authority since Peter is an environmental scientist and thus NOT specially qualified to comment on image processing techniques

He was approved to use his techniques as an expert witness in court cases!

What confirmation is there for this claim? Did these cases involve steel quality or analysis resembling that which applied assassination imagery?

Further, U.S. Steel had him using his technique for steel quality control for many years until his retirement!

Any confirmation for this claim?

[Brian O Connor]

Hi Peter, and Hi Adele, like Jonathan I would like to think that this is the Rosetta stone, and as William points out 17 years is quite a stretch.

I would think too, that with the advances in computer technology since then, the replication process should be much easier ?

Not raising doubts for the sake of it, just looking for a satisfactory solution, that hopefully, the 2nd edition will provide.

[Adele Edisen]

Hi Peter, and Hi Adele, like Jonathan I would like to think that this is the Rosetta stone, and as William points out 17 years is quite a stretch.

I would think too, that with the advances in computer technology since then, the replication process should be much easier ?

Not raising doubts for the sake of it, just looking for a satisfactory solution, that hopefully, the 2nd edition will provide.

Duplication and reproduction of the work, or even a part of the work, by Tom Wilson probably might not be a big problem, if the methods used are identical to those of Tom Wilson. That might be the problem because it is not always possible to have the identical conditions or equipment.

I can think of some common variations in chemical reactions when repeated under very slightly different temperatures, air pressures, and other possible unknown variables. In biological experiments the large variability may be due to uncontrollable and unknown conditions found among living organisms.

I wonder why some people cannot accept Wilson's metallurgical work. That was his only responsibility when he worked so many years for US Steel. Would a major corporation risk the quality of its steel products to an incompetent engineer using an unknown or undeveloped physical system?

Maybe it might help if we look at another electromagnetic radiation, which is heat energy from a fire or from the infra-red radiation from sunlight (not the visible light from sunlight). If we leave a car outside in the summertime sun, the metal gets hot, does it not? How does that happen?

Obviously, the infra-red radiation has to interact with the metal atoms. These atoms have to absorb the energy from the infra-red radiation in quanta amounts (quanta are packets of energy like the photons). If you touch the underside of a fender or hood metal, that will also be hot. How did the heat get to the underside of a sheet of metal?

We have to find out what heat does to atoms and molecules. Atoms (and molecule) move all the time, except at Absolute Zero, we think. Gas atoms (neon), and gas molecules (two bonded oxygen atoms), can move from place to place because of the temperature of their environment ys above Absolute Zero. This type of movement is due to Translational Energy. It's the reason you can smell someone's cologne from across several feet of space in the room. The cologne molecules have traveled from there to the inside of your nose.

Another thing atoms and molecules can do is vibrate and the frequency of vibration increases with the amount of heat energy absorbed. We call that Vibrational Energy.

And finally, atoms and molecules can rotate. This increases with heat applied and is called Rotational Energy.

The reason your car's fender doesn't fly away is that all of these movements are going in all different directions at the same time, so their effects are cancelled out and the fender stays there on the car. Gas molecules can move, being unrestricted by forces from other molecules, etc.

The underside of the fender or hood is hot because the infre-red energy penetrates the metal and the energy from the near-surface atoms has been transferred from atom to atom below, changing their characteristics. Visible light is higher on the energy scale in the electromagnetic spectrum than the infra-red energy (heat). Infra-red means "below red" of the light spectrum which runs from violet to red.

Imagine what light energy is doing to any material based on the interaction of infra-red energy and matter just described. Tom Wilson had an archive of different materials and textures to which he could refer in his photographic work.

This principle is one of the Thermodynamic LAWS which states that matter-energy can neither be created anew or destroyed, but can only be changed in form. A LAW in Science is universal and is absolute in certainty, and is above a theory, which is above an hypothesis, in factual coverage and certitude.

And yes, laws and theories and hypotheses in science can change. That is the history of science over the past centuries. But the challenging ideas must be based on fact and reason.

As far as assassination talk is concerned, all the LNs and the CTs, strictly speaking, have been talking about various hypotheses, not yet to the level of certitude of theory. But, the some of the CTs are getting pretty close to theory right now. in my opinion.

Adele

Edited November 12, 2009 by Adele Edisen

[Jack White]

No offense intended to anyone here, but 99.9% of you (Peter and Adele excepted) are

clueless when it comes to understanding what Tom Wilson understood about the properties

of light. I have prepared this little tutorial to show there is DEPTH to any photo

emulsion (negative or print). Just because you cannot see something in an image

DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT THERE. Most of you think "grain" and "size" are detriments

to studying an image like the Moorman photo. Well here I used a 35mm poorly exposed

image from the early 1900s. The license plate on the truck is smaller than the Badgeman

is in Moorman, and the 35mm image is much tinier. And look at the information that

was in the tiny negative which could not be discerned. Keep this in mind in judging

Tom's work.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Very nice Jack

[Craig Lamson]

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...

Edited November 12, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

No offense intended to anyone here, but 99.9% of you (Peter and Adele excepted) are

clueless when it comes to understanding what Tom Wilson understood about the properties

of light. I have prepared this little tutorial to show there is DEPTH to any photo

emulsion (negative or print). Just because you cannot see something in an image

DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT THERE. Most of you think "grain" and "size" are detriments

to studying an image like the Moorman photo. Well here I used a 35mm poorly exposed

image from the early 1900s. The license plate on the truck is smaller than the Badgeman

is in Moorman, and the 35mm image is much tinier. And look at the information that

was in the tiny negative which could not be discerned. Keep this in mind in judging

Tom's work.

Jack

Lets start with this little piece of bullsnit first..we can work on to the rest of it later after deano tells us what else is "right".

Jack tells us that the licence plate is "smaller than badgeman" What part of badgeman he does not say. "badgemans" head is .6 mm in the Morrman. A GENEROUS measurement of "badgemans' width is 1.6mm. The licence plate of the truck Jack has posted is 3.6mm, based on the image Jack posted being the full 35mm frame and I believe it is as it scales perfectly to 24mmx36mm, the size of a frame of 35mm still film.