I assume you're trying to argue, in a tortured sort of way, that you have no responsibility to establish Wilson as an expert because his rendered opinion, as "testimonial" evidence, supposedly requires no "additional fact." Since you didn't relate this quote to any argument you made, we have to guess what you mean.
Nice try, but no.
The most "basic" evidence does not mean the witness does not require qualification. The qualification for a lay witness is simply that the witness has seen, heard, or otherwise experienced with his senses the phenomena that form that facts of the case. No special skill is required to testify to one's sensations, but the witness is limited to that testimony and may not offer opinions. The premise of the lay witness (as opposed to the expert witness) is that the witness and the trier of fact (i.e., the judge or a juror) are presumed to have the same knowledge and skill as respects the facts under testimony.
Your layman's summary fails to discuss the other kind of testimonial evidence -- expert testimony. It mentions it once, but then fails to describe or define it. Expert testimony is required when the determination of a fact at trial requires knowledge and skill not ordinarily possessed by the trier of fact. This is the kind of testimony you purport Wilson to be offering.
Not everyone possesses the skill to identify the fine composition of materials accurately from photographs, and not everyone is familiar with the sciences that would govern any attempt to do so. This is why you say we must pay special attention to Wilson, who does claim to have that knowledge.
You really should have read the whole document. There's a whole section on hearsay. It specifically says what you did it was wrong when you claimed Wilson was an expert but then pawned off responsibility for it on other people and on the distributor of a book on Wilson's claims.
Finally, go read Article VII of the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, which discusses expert testimony. Please pay special attention to Rule 702, which gives some of the criteria that expert testimony is required to satisfy, and Rule 705, which sets forth the conditions under which the expert may be compelled to validate his method. Your brief summary says testimonial evidence does not "usually" require additional supporting evidence. The underlying facts for an expert opinion are one exception. The initial voir dire establishing that the expert meets the criteria of an expert is another.
There is a great deal of case law on this rule, but I assume since you don't like looking up court cases that you are unfamiliar with it. One particular case discusses at length how one who is not a "traditionally qualified" expert should have his expertise tested. Since you require me to scour the federal record looking for Wilson's alleged expert testimony, I'll leave you to scour the federal record in search of this case, whose decision bears directly on whether Wilson would be considered an expert in federal court.
I was kind of hoping you'd drift into legal definitions of expertise, experts, and the burdens of proof that accompany expert testimony in a legal setting. Those rules are far more stringent than we've previously been using. Can you show that Wilson meets the criteria?
