Jump to content
The Education Forum

TOM WILSON


Recommended Posts

"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

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For what they're worth, two recollections of Wilson in Dallas:

1. One of his wide-frame views of Badgeman shows, to the "shooter's" left, a figure apparently wearing a hardhat and peering through a hand-held object that seemed part camera, part binocular. I vividly recall thinking that the figures seemed hand-drawn -- and crudely at that. Or perhaps what I took for artwork, if you will, were byproducts of Wilson's processes.

2. Wilson was a grand provocateur -- not quite in GPH's league, but gifted nonetheless. He told us that he'd shared some of his work with Oliver Stone -- in particular, photos of the so-called sniper's window. "I told Stone," he said, "that he won't like what I found."

I must say that I'm pleased to have opened this can of worms. I don't see anything counterproductive coming from renewed interest in Wilson's oeuvre -- wherever and whatever it is.

Charles

Stone employed Wilson at a rather substantial fee to examine many of the assassination

images. He never told me of any of his work, except on Altgens view of the Daltex. What

he said he found in the open window by the fire escape was a man with a camera, not a

gun. He said he could not show any of the images Stone paid him to analyze.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

If Wilson did receive such authorization to view secret archives materials, then directly related official and/or private correspondence may exist to corroborate the claim.

Would the Kennedy family have the authority to permit access to "classified" materials at the Archive? Not to split hairs, but might we be talking about photos and other holdings owned by the family, who retain the rights to grant and restrict access?

Wilson's claim that he was working with "Congress" put me in mind of Knudsen's claim (reported by a surviving family member, if memory serves) that he testified and reviewed photos before what to most of us remains an otherwise unknown Congressional investigative body.

Charlie

He had a letter from Marshall introducing him to the Archivist. I do not know if he was

allowed to keep it.

Regarding T. Kennedy, all I know is what Tom told me.

I am UNAWARE OF ANY CLAIM THAT HE WAS WORKING WITH CONGRESS. Tom was

a lone wolf, and was not working "with" anyone in government. He was suing the govt.

I do not know where such claims originate.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Wilson was a retired vice president of U.S. Steel, in charge of quality control.

He was quite an inventive fellow with a creative mind. He invented something he

called a LIGHT VALVE for television optics which did not use a conventional lens.

His specialty was using Macintosh computers for quality control of steel products.

This included compilation of grayscale databases (256 shades of gray) and computer

programs using production line comparison with the database so that metals on an

assembly line could be rejected if the product did not match the data base. He became

intrigued with my work on the backyard photos being faked, and wondered whether

his grayscale technique would work on photos. He scanned the backyard photos,

and was able to strip away gray tones one at a time, confirming that various elements

were pasted together. Next he tackled the Moorman photo, and confirmed that

the badgeman image was genuine. He brought out many details, including detail

of the badge which showed an eagle on top of it. He claimed that his grayscale

comparison even revealed the eye color of the badgeman. He confirmed the man

in the hardhat standing behind badgeman. He claimed to find another man several

feet to badgeman's right who was holding a camera, and he was trying to identify

the kind of camera. After these two successful photo analyses, he decided to visit

Dealey Plaza and study other photos, including the Z film. As an engineer, he

took many measurements and photos, which enabled his scientific study of the

Zfilm. One of his earliest conclusions (I don't remember details) was that the

headshot took place near the steps instead of the 313 location. After studying

the Zfilm in detail, he tackled the autopsy photos. With the help of Cyril Wecht,

he videotaped autopsies and embalming and converted his videos to databases,

enabling him to show that some of the "autopsy photos" were AFTER EMBALMERS

WAX was applied, and thus could not have been shot at the autopsy. With the

assistance of Ted Kennedy, he gained access to secret files in the National

Archives, and saw classified photos of the REAL autopsy photos before they were

RETOUCHED. About this time he appeared in Nigel Turner's TMWKK. He was

in process of suing the government regarding his discoveries when he suffered

a fatal heart attack. He had confided many things to me because he said I was

the ONLY researcher he trusted, and who did not scoff at his work.

That basically is all I know. Tom was a very nice guy...but far too secretive

about his work for his own good, and ours.

Jack

Jack, The only thing above 'new' to me is about Ted K helping Tom to get access! That is interesting!

To All, Yes, it was Jack White's kindness to convince Tom to work on some of my research. However after I sent it to him and he had agreed to my written agreement for their return, he told me 'the materials you sent me are too important to return, I need them for the lawsuit against the government.' From there, yes, a slight 'disagreement' between Tom and I arose...as I wanted both the photos back and the enhancements. He was willing to tell me on the phone what he thought he saw....and Jack is correct, but there was much more detail....but I have never gone public with the details as I can't back them up, yet. Am working on it. Sadly, Tom died and while his own family is not suspicious about his death, I keep my mind 'open' to the idea of it being more than coincidence or natural. But, as C. Wecht was a close friend of his if there was foul play, I would trust Cyril to say so and he has not to my direct question on this. It was not until after Tom's death I was able to get my materials and his notes and enhancements back. Sadly, however, his program and its exact parameters and methods are not available to me at this time. So, I have intriguing images and notes here by the computer, but have hesitated to say or do much with them at this time. Yet. I do feel that Tom's techniques were powerful and groundbreaking. I do not assume, however, that ALL of his claims should be taken as fact. I think some will be proven to be correct.

What is needed is to find out exactly what he filed or planned for his lawsuit. Jack, do you know if it was filed and is public information and if so, where and what court? If not, who was his lawyer handling it? In the Cancellare photo Tom Wilson saw two operational persons in the shadows of the tree [where Plumlee has always said he and a buddy were standing]. Further, he said he found a rifle-shaped metalic object in or near the parking lot of the South Knoll. He said the object in the hands of one of the men in the 

shadows matched the communication devices seen elsewhere in the

Plaza. There are other things he said about the photo, but I will stop here.I just sent yet another email to someone who could [but to date has not] helped to clarify this entire matter. Jack's statement that Tom Wilson was too secretive for his and our benefit is more than true. It is a sad fact that we know little and need to know much more. To my knowledge there are two complete repositories of Tom's work. Sadly, however, neither to my knowledge are active and no one is moving his work forward and/or allowing what was done to be verified. A very sad state of affairs for all of us and perhaps the Truth. Peter

Below, a Wilson image. As you can see they are not 'standard' visual images. I am however able to size and overlap them with the standard photo portion from which it is derived [don't ask, 

feel it best not to disclose at this time]

and from that one can tell some things and see some new things....[especially about the materials the items reflecting the light were made of] but until I get [or can derive - working on it, but highly complex - any math PhDs out there?] the color/shading 'codes', the information is incomplete and not ready for presentation. What you are looking at IF real - and not an artifact of his technique - could be highly significant! FWIW 

I have many other such images done by Tom Wilson on several portions of several photos.More exist that I don't have and they should not be languishing at the two points of deposit colle

cting dust.

A few more points:

Tom several times told me that he made two copies of all his research and

deposited everything with two trusted friends in case anything ever happened

to him. I always assumed one of them might be Cyril Wecht, with whom he

worked very closely. I assumed the other might be his lawyer. And of course

his family retained the original work. BUT ALL OF IT IS NOW UNACCESSIBLE.

Speaking of lawyers, I know for sure that ONE of his lawyers was Brad Kizzia

of Dallas. I have no details of his lawsuit, but he always assured me that I

would be present in Washington for it, since much of his work was an extension

of my studies, and my backyard and badgeman studies would be used as

an introduction to his computer analysis.

I tried several times to get him to be specific about his technique, but he was

always vague. He told me that ANYONE CAN DO IT and that it used OFF-THE-SHELF

SOFTWARE and the secret was KNOWING HOW TO USE THE SOFTWARE.

I did not fully understand his process or results, and I felt that he may have

sometimes MISINTERPRETED his own findings. Some of his work, such as he

showed in TMWKK of the head wound from the Zfilm were truly remarkable,

but since I believe the Zfilm is fabricated, I found this work puzzling.

To me, the biggest bombshell in his research is his revelation to me that

through Teddy Kennedy (through Burke Marshall) he got a letter of access

to see certain classified files in the national archives which included THE

AUTOPSY PHOTOS BEFORE THEY WERE RETOUCHED. He was allowed to

view them, but not to copy them or even make notes. But apparently

Teddy knows about them and somebody at the archives knows about

them. I only wonder if Tom's files have something on this.

If I remember anything else, I will add it.

Jack

Jack, Was that peek at the REAL autopsy materials get any confirmation from Cyril or anyone other than Tom himself? I just sent two emails to try to 'unstick' this gordian knot that was Tom's research...will contact you about it further privately. It really needs to be done...and let the chips fall where they may. I

 personally think there is merit in his work, even if he thought he could see a b

it more than might really be possible to see...but maybe I'm wrong. You mention he 'saw' a camera [i assume from the wording a movie type] near badgeman. Anyone out

 there who has seen the 'other' 'Z' type film care to comment if a location near 'Badgeman' would be a 'fit' for the angle of the film you saw?!

I'm trying to 'back-engineer' parts of Tom's work. On his enhancements are notes as to his settings on his computer...but they were for himself - not for others and I don't even know the program he was using!....but I'm sure it was not 'off the shelf'. He told me he modified a program for his own purposes and it seems that way to me. Sometimes I think I can figure out the color coding [arbitary I'm sure] as when there is someone in the shadow and a vehicle in front and one can match color for glass, color for metal, etc...but then there are other colors and other variants of shade and I'm not sure what he assigned for what, nor what cut-off points in the spectrum he was using [or shades of gray].....

Jack, if you'd like to lean on anyone who can shed light on this matter please do. If there is anyone else out there who knows part of this puzzle, kindly let me know here or privately.

I don't know much more about Tom's work than I have written above.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Wilson::"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. "

there are 'off the shelf' modifiable software that does a huge number of things to data. In this case we're talking greyscale. It's simply a matter of knowing the algorithms used and applying them properly. In this instance I think he is talking about histogram equalisation, which in a sense 'stretches' the available data and what is there in the image is 'enhanced' . So, what you end up with is an image that shows things that actually are there BUT now in a different relationship to the surrounding data. This, particularly for X-rays, depending on the source of course, can then be used wrongly to define what materials are causing the various opacities. This is one reason that Professinal Forensic Pathologists use Laboratory Standard light boxes, plus EXPERIENCE, and a VERY important element , long protracted LOOKING. Just LOOKING! (at the ORIGINAL UNENHANCED Xray) They Look at it comtinuously for a long time, and with their professional expertise (anatomical knowledge and past vast experience) are able to decide what is what. This is outside the scope of , no matter how well intentioned and serious, amateurs.

Hree is an example of the policemans shoulder in altgens with the on the image on the right, the process I think Tom is talking, re these xrays, applied.

This can then be further worked on by other algorithms to further 'enhance'. The everpresent problem however is that the CHOICES of the 'enhancer' determines the outcome and hence we get a multitude of 'Lucies in the sky with diamonds'.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Wilson was a retired vice president of U.S. Steel, in charge of quality control.

He was quite an inventive fellow with a creative mind. He invented something he

called a LIGHT VALVE for television optics which did not use a conventional lens.

His specialty was using Macintosh computers for quality control of steel products.

This included compilation of grayscale databases (256 shades of gray) and computer

programs using production line comparison with the database so that metals on an

assembly line could be rejected if the product did not match the data base. He became

intrigued with my work on the backyard photos being faked, and wondered whether

his grayscale technique would work on photos. He scanned the backyard photos,

and was able to strip away gray tones one at a time, confirming that various elements

were pasted together. Next he tackled the Moorman photo, and confirmed that

the badgeman image was genuine. He brought out many details, including detail

of the badge which showed an eagle on top of it. He claimed that his grayscale

comparison even revealed the eye color of the badgeman. He confirmed the man

in the hardhat standing behind badgeman. He claimed to find another man several

feet to badgeman's right who was holding a camera, and he was trying to identify

the kind of camera. After these two successful photo analyses, he decided to visit

Dealey Plaza and study other photos, including the Z film. As an engineer, he

took many measurements and photos, which enabled his scientific study of the

Zfilm. One of his earliest conclusions (I don't remember details) was that the

headshot took place near the steps instead of the 313 location. After studying

the Zfilm in detail, he tackled the autopsy photos. With the help of Cyril Wecht,

he videotaped autopsies and embalming and converted his videos to databases,

enabling him to show that some of the "autopsy photos" were AFTER EMBALMERS

WAX was applied, and thus could not have been shot at the autopsy. With the

assistance of Ted Kennedy, he gained access to secret files in the National

Archives, and saw classified photos of the REAL autopsy photos before they were

RETOUCHED. About this time he appeared in Nigel Turner's TMWKK. He was

in process of suing the government regarding his discoveries when he suffered

a fatal heart attack. He had confided many things to me because he said I was

the ONLY researcher he trusted, and who did not scoff at his work.

That basically is all I know. Tom was a very nice guy...but far too secretive

about his work for his own good, and ours.

Jack

Jack, The only thing above 'new' to me is about Ted K helping Tom to get access! That is interesting!

To All, Yes, it was Jack White's kindness to convince Tom to work on some of my research. However after I sent it to him and he had agreed to my written agreement for their return, he told me 'the materials you sent me are too important to return, I need them for the lawsuit against the government.' From there, yes, a slight 'disagreement' between Tom and I arose...as I wanted both the photos back and the enhancements. He was willing to tell me on the phone what he thought he saw....and Jack is correct, but there was much more detail....but I have never gone public with the details as I can't back them up, yet. Am working on it. Sadly, Tom died and while his own family is not suspicious about his death, I keep my mind 'open' to the idea of it being more than coincidence or natural. But, as C. Wecht was a close friend of his if there was foul play, I would trust Cyril to say so and he has not to my direct question on this. It was not until after Tom's death I was able to get my materials and his notes and enhancements back. Sadly, however, his program and its exact parameters and methods are not available to me at this time. So, I have intriguing images and notes here by the computer, but have hesitated to say or do much with them at this time. Yet. I do feel that Tom's techniques were powerful and groundbreaking. I do not assume, however, that ALL of his claims should be taken as fact. I think some will be proven to be correct.

What is needed is to find out exactly what he filed or planned for his lawsuit. Jack, do you know if it was filed and is public information and if so, where and what court? If not, who was his lawyer handling it? In the Cancellare photo Tom Wilson saw two operational persons in the shadows of the tree [where Plumlee has always said he and a buddy were standing]. Further, he said he found a rifle-shaped metalic object in or near the parking lot of the South Knoll. He said the object in the hands of one of the men in the 

shadows matched the communication devices seen elsewhere in the

Plaza. There are other things he said about the photo, but I will stop here.I just sent yet another email to someone who could [but to date has not] helped to clarify this entire matter. Jack's statement that Tom Wilson was too secretive for his and our benefit is more than true. It is a sad fact that we know little and need to know much more. To my knowledge there are two complete repositories of Tom's work. Sadly, however, neither to my knowledge are active and no one is moving his work forward and/or allowing what was done to be verified. A very sad state of affairs for all of us and perhaps the Truth. Peter

Below, a Wilson image. As you can see they are not 'standard' visual images. I am however able to size and overlap them with the standard photo portion from which it is derived [don't ask, 

feel it best not to disclose at this time]

and from that one can tell some things and see some new things....[especially about the materials the items reflecting the light were made of] but until I get [or can derive - working on it, but highly complex - any math PhDs out there?] the color/shading 'codes', the information is incomplete and not ready for presentation. What you are looking at IF real - and not an artifact of his technique - could be highly significant! FWIW 

I have many other such images done by Tom Wilson on several portions of several photos.More exist that I don't have and they should not be languishing at the two points of deposit colle

cting dust.

A few more points:

Tom several times told me that he made two copies of all his research and

deposited everything with two trusted friends in case anything ever happened

to him. I always assumed one of them might be Cyril Wecht, with whom he

worked very closely. I assumed the other might be his lawyer. And of course

his family retained the original work. BUT ALL OF IT IS NOW UNACCESSIBLE.

Speaking of lawyers, I know for sure that ONE of his lawyers was Brad Kizzia

of Dallas. I have no details of his lawsuit, but he always assured me that I

would be present in Washington for it, since much of his work was an extension

of my studies, and my backyard and badgeman studies would be used as

an introduction to his computer analysis.

I tried several times to get him to be specific about his technique, but he was

always vague. He told me that ANYONE CAN DO IT and that it used OFF-THE-SHELF

SOFTWARE and the secret was KNOWING HOW TO USE THE SOFTWARE.

I did not fully understand his process or results, and I felt that he may have

sometimes MISINTERPRETED his own findings. Some of his work, such as he

showed in TMWKK of the head wound from the Zfilm were truly remarkable,

but since I believe the Zfilm is fabricated, I found this work puzzling.

To me, the biggest bombshell in his research is his revelation to me that

through Teddy Kennedy (through Burke Marshall) he got a letter of access

to see certain classified files in the national archives which included THE

AUTOPSY PHOTOS BEFORE THEY WERE RETOUCHED. He was allowed to

view them, but not to copy them or even make notes. But apparently

Teddy knows about them and somebody at the archives knows about

them. I only wonder if Tom's files have something on this.

If I remember anything else, I will add it.

Jack

Jack, Was that peek at the REAL autopsy materials get any confirmation from Cyril or anyone other than Tom himself? I just sent two emails to try to 'unstick' this gordian knot that was Tom's research...will contact you about it further privately. It really needs to be done...and let the chips fall where they may. I

 personally think there is merit in his work, even if he thought he could see a b

it more than might really be possible to see...but maybe I'm wrong. You mention he 'saw' a camera [i assume from the wording a movie type] near badgeman. Anyone out

 there who has seen the 'other' 'Z' type film care to comment if a location near 'Badgeman' would be a 'fit' for the angle of the film you saw?!

I'm trying to 'back-engineer' parts of Tom's work. On his enhancements are notes as to his settings on his computer...but they were for himself - not for others and I don't even know the program he was using!....but I'm sure it was not 'off the shelf'. He told me he modified a program for his own purposes and it seems that way to me. Sometimes I think I can figure out the color coding [arbitary I'm sure] as when there is someone in the shadow and a vehicle in front and one can match color for glass, color for metal, etc...but then there are other colors and other variants of shade and I'm not sure what he assigned for what, nor what cut-off points in the spectrum he was using [or shades of gray].....

Jack, if you'd like to lean on anyone who can shed light on this matter please do. If there is anyone else out there who knows part of this puzzle, kindly let me know here or privately.

I don't know much more about Tom's work than I have written above.

Jack

Thanks Jack. Does anyone out there have URLs of the two public presentations of Tom's work mentioned on this thread [or others]?

I believe John Dolva's mention of histogram shifting might be part of the process he was using, but I believe it was more complex. He explained to me he has spent thousands of hours of computer time analyzing the spectral features of different materials at different temperatures and reflecting different frequencies of light [or emitting them]. He said his system used this database and the colors were assigned to designate a particular substance [i.e. glass, plastic, metal of type A, metal of type B, e

tc. et al.]

His marginalia under his images for me indicate changes he made in his settings, but not having his program at hand it is hard to tell more than that a series is going 'up' or 'down' on a certain parameter.

John Woods, can you contact that lawyer and ask him what stage the case was and if any of the filings or things that were to be filed can be released to the public....?

IF Tom Wilson's work has any validity [and I believe it does!], it is very important and should not be buried nor lost. He may have over-interpreted some things, but I think he was on the mark on others. In the Cancellare photo he looked at for me, on his images I can clearly see two people in the shadows of the tree and can see they are holding objects. He told me that the objects matched objects held by other operationals people in the Plaza, but I don't have that information and without independant images of known objects using his system I am not about to go public with what I have sitting on my desk....

Peter's quote of Tom regarding shifting of grayscale reminded me of a few more tidbits of things Tom told me.

It seems that John Dolva has the expertise more than anyone I have encountered to decipher Tom's work, and

maybe what I remember may mean something to him, if I can relate it correctly.

Here's what I partially remember, greatly simplified I'm sure:

Every object photographed has a unique numerical place on a b/w grayscale.

Therefore a numerical value or number can be assigned to its photographic properties.

A known object can be photographed and assigned a numerical place on a database.

Unknown objects in a photo can be compared to known objects, and numerical values matched.

For instance metal has a specific value, glass a specific value, etc.

Colors also have specific b/w values which can be determined by comparing with known color values.

Shifting of the grayscale by matching known numbers helps identify objects within a photo.

(thus if metal is matched to metal, other things like glass fall into place on the grayscale)

In his work at USSteel, Tom had already compiled a HUGE DATABASE of such things, and in

his JFK work, he expanded it greatly. For instance, he videotaped autopsies, and developed

a grayscale identification of EMBALMER'S WAX. He was able to use this working with the

autopsy photos, and could show that certain "autopsy" photos were instead post-autopsy.

He did this though use of PSEUDO-COLORS. Knowing the NUMERICAL GRAY VALUE of

embalmer wax, he ASSIGNED THAT NUMBER A PSEUDO COLOR LIKE RED, AND WITHIN

THE B/W PHOTO OF JFK'S HEAD, EVERYTHING WITH THAT NUMBER TURNED RED. The

results were astonishing. Large portions of JFK's right temple all turned red because they

matched the number for embalmer wax...proving that the photos were not made at the

autopsy, but later.

The above is strictly my interpretation of things Tom told me and may or may not be accurate.

As an illustration, he told me about his initial studies of the Moorman photo and badgeman in

particular, the first thing he compared was the "badge", and he immediately found that it

"matched" his database for metal; he found that obscuring badgeman's face was something

that "matched" his database for smoke, etc. He even said that badgeman's one open eye

"matched" a known color, but he would not tell me the color (if badgeman was ever "identified",

this finding could be important. Once he knew that the badge image was metal, he shifted

the numerical values so the badge number matched the metal database number, and it

made other things in the photo easier to identify by the grayscale. He used GIANT magnifications

in his analyses; for instance, he would enlarge the "badge" to full screen size to get subtle

shadings.

Unfortunately, some of his attempts to explain his processes were not easily understood by

laymen. In trying to explain some of the things he could do, he drew contempt from Gary

Mack by saying that his process could "see around corners". What he meant was that any

object in a photo REFLECTS LIGHT from other objects in the photo, and even in b/w, he could

determine what was being reflected, even if it could not be seen in the photo. For instance

if Jackie's pink dress is NOT WITHIN a given Zframe, he could detect the color reflected

in other objects within the frame, even in b/w. I grasped this concept, but Gary could not.

John Dolva, does any of the above help you?

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Tom Wilson's work to be very interesting, although I do not have sufficient technical detail to comment from any perspective other than as an interested observer. I read Jack's message above, and I believe I followed the idea of it.

From a programming perspective, it doesn't sound terribly complicated.

Several other notions came to mind, though.

1) We would need to understand his method for converting analog to digital. In other words, the shades of gray that are seen by the program are somewhat dependent on the method used to generate them.

2) Critical to the entire process is the database, which we do not have...

3) The application and system he was using on TMWKK is rather dated, and systems capable of distinguishing far more than 256 shades of gray are widely available. Resolutions are better, too. It would be interesting to study greater depths of gray scale and their impact on a method such as this.

4) The algorithm sounds a little like that which is used to colorize black and white movies.

I'd love to learn more about what he was working on from a technical perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, yes.

Any description, as first hand as possible (understood or not correct or not) , helps.

I will take time to prepare a careful answer (to the best of my abilities) I'm very preoccupied with other things,

but as people like Robin produce better and better data (imagery) I look at hese very things and don't contribute as I realise that the more I 'know'

the more I realise how little I know.

(Note I am not, nor have claimed, expert/ise.)

Together, with those who as yet have not contributed directly or indirectly,

and others who for reasons of their own restrain their contributions,

I think we can decode Tom's work.

Off hand: some thoughts:, with gray scale we deal with a limited set range of data. However there is also

image structure to consider. IOW degree of detail, and its location in relation to other surrounding detail can tell

a lot about the data irrespective of its particular values. This (for me) is a fore front of knowledge (that grows).

The better the source data the better the results

as there are thresholds which I find very few imagery available to me at this point can provide significant results.

Possibly this is a point at which Toms witheld data in image form and notes made him realise that what he was

working on was in fact something which was poorly understood and in fact possibly doubtful of producing results

which could not be understood and disputed in other ways.

EDIT:: may I add : I believe there are experts in this field who should be members (found and asked to join) that would make

anything I say playschool material. But with the team we do have I think we should tackle it

and take it as far as we can.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, yes.

Any description, as first hand as possible (understood or not correct or not) , helps.

I will take time to prepare a careful answer (to the best of my abilities) I'm very preoccupied with other things,

but as people like Robin produce better and better data (imagery) I look at hese very things and don't contribute as I realise that the more I 'know'

the more I realise how little I know.

(Note I am not, nor have claimed, expert/ise.)

Together, with those who as yet have not contributed directly or indirectly,

and others who for reasons of their own restrain their contributions,

I think we can decode Tom's work.

Off hand: some thoughts:, with gray scale we deal with a limited set range of data. However there is also

image structure to consider. IOW degree of detail, and its location in relation to other surrounding detail can tell

a lot about the data irrespective of its particular values. This (for me) is a fore front of knowledge (that grows).

The better the source data the better the results

as there are thresholds which I find very few imagery available to me at this point can provide significant results.

Possibly this is a point at which Toms witheld data in image form and notes made him realise that what he was

working on was in fact something which was poorly understood and in fact possibly doubtful of producing results

which could not be understood and disputed in other ways.

EDIT:: may I add : I believe there are experts in this field who should be members (found and asked to join) that would make

anything I say playschool material. But with the team we do have I think we should tackle it

and take it as far as we can.

John...if I understand you correctly, I think you may be partially right. I think Tom

himself may not have fully understood or interpreted all results accurately. He was

expert at using computers to analyze metals, and he applied that technique to photos.

He got interesting results, but without sharing his information with peers in the field

or getting other opinions, it is difficult for lay people to judge his results. All we have

is one man's opinion (expert opinion, true) about the meaning of rather esoteric

studies. I believe he was "onto something"...but it is still just one man's opinion; I would

be much more comfortable with his findings if he had gathered a group of scientists

and computer people to explain his process to in order to confirm its viability. He had

an engineering degree and was a computer expert in his field, but we need to know

whether his findings have universal scientific validity. They make sense to me, but

I have zero training in this field.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Dolva,

I am in full agreement with your suggestion that Wilson's work is deserving of intense and unbiased evaluation -- which would include, of course, testing on control subjects.

One caveat: Whatever the final verdict may be on Wilson, we forget at our own peril that it will have zero bearing -- repeat for emphasis, ZERO BEARING -- on the answer to the conspiracy/no conspiracy question.

Conspiracy in the case of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy -- the "how" of the crime -- has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, to borrow a term from a certain defrocked Jesuit, "to the degree of metaphysical certitude."

As for the "who" and, by extension, "why" questions, we'll just have to be patient.

It seems to me that the first steps must be to identify methodologies, then run control experiments.

One more thing: I have enjoyed private communications with a number of well known JFK researchers on the Wilson issue. Within the past 72 hours I have been urged both to pursue and to abandon this "all-important area of study" and "quackery", respectively.

The smoke rises. Presume fire.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, Yes!

a plan:

we have considerable talent of various degrees in various areas and in development.

some thoughts (names left out because of lapses in thinking, not to offend)

This forms a team. For example with Jack and Craig we have hands on photo eperience. We have those with data (imagery and notes and recollections) like Peter for example. We have considerable technical talent in Frank. We have Chris, Ed and Eugene and others. We have the knowledge and contacts of Bill. We have potential other sources of data (imagery and information) like Gary for example. For myself I have a long experience at a particular level of development, that I'm continualy pushing the boundaries of, the best I can, with the time available to me.

Do we have the willingness and potential to work together critically, yet politely, with minimal ego involvement, and minimal reward expectations except to see the job done?

I will share what I know and what I use and think could be done. This means others at their own rate can get up to speed with what I have to offer and go beyond.

I think it should be done without looking for any particular result (ie not driven for a wanted answer) but to push as far as can to results whatever they may be. This gives a foundation to build on by others and perhaps one day sooner or late we can have something that will be universally reognised as real and as evidentiary.

One way or the other, even just an attempt will benefit us all in different ways.

EDIT:: I missed Charles' post. Good points of course. An important component is the critical evaluation by all in the process.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For John Dolva,

I too am convinced that sufficient -- and then some -- intellectual and experiential resources present on this site to tackle the challenges inherent in replicating and evaluating Wilson's methodologies and conclusions.

Alas, having been around the organizational block thrice too often -- and at the risk of earning the epithet of "naysayer" -- I feel obliged to comment on the odds stacked against such an effort ever bearing fruit.

Put aside, if only for a moment, the probability that agent provocateurs are among us and await opportunities to turn any such efforts to their masters' advantage. I've witnessed my own initiatives to create a JFK-related amnesty commission, after the South African model, and to unify the at-odds JFK Lancer and COPA organizations go from white-hot, enthusiastic approval to absolute zero. And while without hesitation I indict myself for having done less than I might to move those operations forward, I must also report, with equal candor, that there are inherent weaknesses in the "I've got some material, you've got some lumber, let's build a stage and put on a play!" paradigm sufficient ultimately to render moot a program such as you so nobly envision.

Anyway ... That cautionary tale notwithstanding, I'll step forward to do what I can, from a non-technical standpoint, to make suggestions in the areas of communications, public relations, and overall planning of strategies and tactics.

For Peter Lemkin,

Thanks for taking the time to address my points with such clarity.

I would submit that Wilson's own verifications of his method are of zero probative value to a body that, in part, is "testing" the man's intellect and character. Of course they may be of some real assistance to the investigative process.

I agree with your characterization of the American body/mind politic as inertial. Hence the aforementioned offer to consult on p.r. issues. We must appeal to the intellect and the viscera simultaneously

A final note: Even if Wilson is shown to have led us down the primrose path -- innocently or otherwise -- we nonetheless can put to productive use fair evaluations of his work and his game.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For John Dolva,

I too am convinced that sufficient -- and then some -- intellectual and experiential resources present on this site to tackle the challenges inherent in replicating and evaluating Wilson's methodologies and conclusions.

Alas, having been around the organizational block thrice too often -- and at the risk of earning the epithet of "naysayer" -- I feel obliged to comment on the odds stacked against such an effort ever bearing fruit.

Put aside, if only for a moment, the probability that agent provocateurs are among us and await opportunities to turn any such efforts to their masters' advantage. I've witnessed my own initiatives to create a JFK-related amnesty commission, after the South African model, and to unify the at-odds JFK Lancer and COPA organizations go from white-hot, enthusiastic approval to absolute zero. And while without hesitation I indict myself for having done less than I might to move those operations forward, I must also report, with equal candor, that there are inherent weaknesses in the "I've got some material, you've got some lumber, let's build a stage and put on a play!" paradigm sufficient ultimately to render moot a program such as you so nobly envision.

Anyway ... That cautionary tale notwithstanding, I'll step forward to do what I can, from a non-technical standpoint, to make suggestions in the areas of communications, public relations, and overall planning of strategies and tactics.

For Peter Lemkin,

Thanks for taking the time to address my points with such clarity.

I would submit that Wilson's own verifications of his method are of zero probative value to a body that, in part, is "testing" the man's intellect and character. Of course they may be of some real assistance to the investigative process.

I agree with your characterization of the American body/mind politic as inertial. Hence the aforementioned offer to consult on p.r. issues. We must appeal to the intellect and the viscera simultaneously

A final note: Even if Wilson is shown to have led us down the primrose path -- innocently or otherwise -- we nonetheless can put to productive use fair evaluations of his work and his game.

Charles

My two bits worth...

Tom did some very important work.

The very most important was "proving" fakery of the autopsy photos.

According to Tom, IN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES EXISTED AT ONE TIME

IN SECRET FILES KNOWN TO TEDDY K "ORIGINAL" AUTOPSY PHOTOS

BEFORE THEY WERE RETOUCHED. This is "a smoking gun". If the photos

exist and if Tom's embalmer wax study is valid, it is proof that THE

AUTOPSY PHOTOS WERE FABRICATED. What more proof is needed of

govt involvement? These materials NEVER left the control of the USgovt;

Cubans could not fake them; Russians could not fake them; Mafia could

not fake them, etc.

This is far more important than all of his other analyses. I have often

wondered if this one discovery made his heart attack a convenient method

of burying this discovery.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter quoted Tom:

"He gave me a list of findings from within the images I gave him, as well as a series of questions to ask of the two persons he felt I know who might have been standing on the S. Knoll. They were amazingly specific. An example: "Which one of you had a tatoo on your left cheek and please submit a diagram of the tatoo and I can verify if you were or were not there"

He was absolutely sure there were two persons standing in the shade of the tree near the steps of the S. Knoll. One person had one object and the other had two objects they were holding. One object one was holding was the exact same object a man behind the stockade fence on the N. Knoll was holding at that time. He asked me to ask them for the model number and name of said device [and indicated he knew this and would again be able to tell if the people I was in communication with were really there then or not]."

Tom told me the exact same thing, for what it is worth.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...