JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Another absurd challenge. How do you think the ARRB chose to call her to testify? Do you think they just pulled her name out of the phone book?????
Click to expand...


You are asserting they chose to call her.
You tell me why.

I do know she was not at the autopsy, and worked at NPC (Naval Photographic Center) in 1963.
Her link to the actual autopsy and to the autopsy photographs is tenuous at best.

Perhaps they only chose to call her because she came forward with her recollection after the ARRB was formed, and contacted them and asked to testify. I have no clue. It is not covered in her testimony before the ARRB that I can see.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/spencer.htm

A good place to start would be to ascertain why the ARRB took her testimony. If she contacted them first and merely volunteered to testify, it wouldn't support her recollection any. Asking me why they chose to call her to testify is simply misdirection on your part, and another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Again, *YOU* need to document that Spencer's recollection - 34 years after the fact - is valid and not just a false memory. To me, a recollection a third of a century after the fact isn't worth a damn.

Neither is it worth a damn to the man who took her testimony, Jeremy Gunn:

The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony. I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable.
Click to expand...
​

His full statement in a speech at Stanford is here:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/24th_Issue/gunn.html

Of course, you don't want to hear that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, because your entire case is built around throwing out the good evidence and keeping only the unreliable eyewitness testimony.

You throw out the Z-film because some witnesses remember something different.
You throw out the autopsy photos because some witnesses remember something different.
You throw out the rifle because some witnesses remember something different.
You throw out the shells found on the sixth floor because some witnesses remember something different.
etc. etc.

In short, your case is nonsense from start to finish.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
NO. The evidence is that Bartlett asserts that she did indeed receive a phone call from someone who identified himself as Pres.Johnson and transferred it to the ER. Try not to interpolate that which is not there.
Click to expand...


Yes. She asserts that NOW. But her initial statements don't mention the call at all.
 
Robert Prey said:
Of course he describes the process. Broken down to the essentials, his program translates the 30 shades of gray visible to the human eye, and turns them into 256 shades of grey, and then assigns a color to each.
Click to expand...

Pathetic.

First, please don't "break it down to the essentials." I taught computer graphics and imaging for two years at the University of Utah, the school whose graduates brought you Pixar and Adobe Photoshop. PM me your contact information if you to verify that through the department office. Simplifications and glosses are not sufficiently rigorous to determine the strength and validity of Wilson's purported method. So make with the details or admit that you cannot.

Second, I got this much from reading the book on Wilson's work. What can you do to expound on it?

"Translates the 30 shades of gray..." No, the human eye is capable of perceiving much more tonal variation than that, between 100 and 500 depending on lighting. Translates them from what to what, Robert?

"Turns them into 256 shades of gray." His miracle breakthrough is 8-bit luminosity quantization? I hate to burst your bubble, but computer video capture hardware does that automatically. It's how the hardware works, in fact. It just quantizes the Y channel of the YUV composite video signal according to a characteristic response curve. What was Wilson's response curve? Was it custom, derived perhaps from considerable experimentation? Or was it simply the standard logarithmic curve? Please tell us, Robert. Or show us where Wilson explained it.

So thus far, we have nothing more exotic than what your desktop scanner does when scanning in B&W mode.

Plus, the way you've phrased it raises a serious problem either with his method or with your explanation of it. You suggest that the process takes the 30 shades of gray and translates them into 256 shades of gray. That is, taking values quantized to the discrete range 0-29 and remapping them to discrete values 0-255. Do you understand why that doesn't work? There isn't enough variation in the source signal to produce variation that is meaningful in the result signal. For every single value in the source signal, there are about 8 possible values in the destination signal. What data does the algorithm use to determine which of the 8 possible values is the right one?

In short, you're claiming something that's one of the known impossibilities in digital image analysis: putting back information that was lost through quantization. Congratulations: Wilson just failed Digital Image Processing 101. Or you did. Do you want to take responsibility for it? Or shall I pin it on Wilson?

"Then assigns a color to each one." Color meaning hue? Or color meaning a combination of hue. value, and saturation? What is the significance of the colors assigned, and how does the system decide what color should go with what shade of gray?

Science uses false-color images all the time. Because the eye perceives hue more readily than luminosity, single-dimensioned data in a 2D or 3D spatial distribution is mapped to hues. Also, for 3D spatially distributed data, luminosity would be incorrectly perceived as shading, hence we use hue. One can map actual photometric luminosity to hue, but why? We'll come back to this. In engineering, for example, we will collect stress or strain information on a beam and render it in false color where the wavelength of the hue is mapped to some selected range of strain readings. Thermal imaging works that way too, where infrared sensor are mapped to hue.

But we use hue only. Hue is a one-dimensional concept, and we map it to other one-dimensional concepts simply in order to amplify very small differences in them, where the differences would be considered significant. Most scientific people eventually get a sixth sense for the visible spectrum, where red represents one end and violet represents the other end of what may be some concept like strain. Green, being in the middle, is "average variance" of the scale you choose.

Here's an example of thermographic false-color imaging.
http://mmi.oregonstate.edu/pearl/research/infared-summary

Halfway down this page is an example of false color used to encode flow velocity in a complex fluid dynamics phenomenon. Note the legend telling us how to interpret the color in terms of the depicted phenomenon.
http://grainflowresearch.mae.cornell.edu/geophysics/suspension_currents/suspension_currents.html

Halfway down this page is a depiction of calculated stress at each point on a mechanical part subjected to load. Typically red hues represent the largest values while blue-black hues represent the smallest.
http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/coldgains/

Here the incident intensity of a streetlight vendor's product is rendered in false color. This is not the same as optical luminosity of a photograph of the street.
http://www.valopaa.com/references/applications/street_lighting

In the book, Wilson claims that false coloration simply allows the viewer to see better the subtle variations in value. But those variations are subtle for a reason: they're subtle in real life. Then Wilson adds the illusion of a third dimension, putting quantized areas of the image into a false relief. Further, he selectively requantizes the image, removing intermediate quantized levels. This has the end result of creating a false sense of edge, which in turn creates a false sense of form. The edges he creates through his interactive manipulation of the image are not the actual edges of objects in the photograph. But that's what he interprets them as.

Up to this point, none of Wilson's "analysis" transcends anything that can't have been done by a 12-year-old fiddling idly with Adobe Photoshop sliders. There is no expertise involved, and indeed the demonstration of substantial lack of expertise by failing to realize the perceptual effects of his manipulations.

The key to this hokum is where the book mentions that the final identification of materials and forms come from "Tom's trained eye." In other words, none of this pseudoscientific attempt and image processing matters a tinker's dam; it's all Wilson's opinion. The whole magic comes from Wilson wiggling sliders until his pareidolic sense "sees" something. What's so obviously comical from the book is that he's working from a half-toned print copy of the Moorman photo! He magnifies it to absurdly impractical scale, then quantizes and requantizes the half-toning dots interactively until the artifacts of their confluence trigger his pareidolic reflex.

Robert, over the past 10 years I've had no end of people telling me they could miraculously extract images of alien artifacts, stagehands, crystal cities, backdrops, studio lighting by fiddling idly with images in a way that does nothing more than amplify quantization steps and create a false sense of significance in them. This is what Wilson is doing.

His method is hopelessly subjective, completely unscientific, irreproducible, and based entirely on his pareidolia. It falls fully into at least half a dozen of the same highly amusing traps that have claimed most amateur image "analysts" over the years. And it's painfully clear that you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss Wilson's findings.

So let's sum up. You can't correctly or meaningfully describe Wilson's work; you can't explain how it achieves the results it does; you can't get around the admission that the method relies entirely on "Tom's trained eye;" you can't differentiate this method from simple random Photoshop slider-twiddling -- yet you want us to accept this "evidence" on its face? Um, no.

Conversely, you can't back up a single claim you've made about Wilson's expertise, and thus the validity of his "trained eye."

Where does that leave us?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ess-assassinated_n_1434191.html?ncid=webmail1


Mary Pinchot Meyer, JFK Mistress, Assassinated By CIA, New Book Says

WASHINGTON -- Conspiracy theorists who question President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963 have, over the years, become obsessed with another murder. On Oct. 12, 1964, socialite and artist Mary Pinchot Meyer, a longtime Kennedy mistress, was shot execution-style in broad daylight while walking along the Georgetown canal towpath.
Click to expand...


More nonsense from the conspiracy camp.

Here's the best part:

"Janney's theory is that an Army lieutenant and suspected CIA hit man named William Mitchell shot Meyer. The author says this hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that neither the U.S. military nor Georgetown University, where Mitchell said he was a professor, have any record of him..."
Click to expand...


It never ends.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Oh no! Neither the U.S. military nor Georgetown University have a record of me. I hope I'm not going to be blamed for this murder.
 
HSienzant said:
Yes, it's clear that Robert never retracts anything, and furthermore, always insists his interpretation of the evidence is the only valid one - even when other interpretations are shown as possible and more consistent with the other evidence. Robert also insists that his views are correct, even when exposed as having no foundation in fact.

That's okay. It's my firm belief that someday Robert will come around to re-assessing the evidence, and then come to realize that he was lied to - repeatedly and without cause - by the authors of conspiracy books whose only motive was to make a buck.
Click to expand...
It may be a commentary on my general level of cynicism, but I don't see our friend budging a millimeter. Ever. When the 100th anniversary of the assassination comes around (assuming RP is alive), he'll still be clinging to, and promoting the fiction of, a conspiracy. Heck, science could find a way to reanimate Oswald, to have him proclaim in no uncertain terms, "I did it!" and the CTs wouldn't miss a beat explaining it away.

"All lies and jest. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
It may be a commentary on my general level of cynicism, but I don't see our friend budging a millimeter. Ever. When the 100th anniversary of the assassination comes around (assuming RP is alive), he'll still be clinging to, and promoting the fiction of, a conspiracy. Heck, science could find a way to reanimate Oswald, to have him proclaim in no uncertain terms, "I did it!" and the CTs wouldn't miss a beat explaining it away.

"All lies and jest. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Click to expand...


I speak of converting Robert because I know it can be done - and that may be a commentary on my personal history in this area. I was once a conspiracy theorist myself. I know of several others like myself (Dr. Bob Artwohl among them) who started out on the CT side of the fence and flipped from the dark side once they actually started doing research into the subject by going back to the primary sources instead of relying on Conspiracy books.

I also successfully converted my brother from a CT. I kept hammering away on "Yeah, that's what the book says, but here's the truth" and eventually he came around. I remember asking him about a year later if there was a final straw, and if so, what it was.

He told me it concerned the jacket that Oswald abandoned after shooting Tippit. One conspiracy book, in discussing the jacket, said the jacket was manufactured and sold only in California, and Oswald had never been in California as a civilian (trying to make the point that Oswald had no opportunity to purchase the jacket found after the Tippit shooting under a parked car in a parking lot near the shooting scene - so ergo, the jacket wasn't Oswald's, and therefore Oswald wasn't the killer of Tippit). I pointed out that Oswald was stationed in California AS A MARINE, and had plenty of opportunity to purchase the jacket when on leave. I also pointed out that he could have purchased the jacket not new in California, but used from a thrift store (which would fit his penurious ways), and that he could have come across that used jacket in California, Texas or even Louisiana. The dry cleaning tag in the jacket couldn't be traced to any establishment in the Dallas area, which fits with the theory that Oswald wasn't the original owner (Oswald wasn't known to use dry-cleaning - too expensive). After reading my rebuttal about the jacket, he realized the conspiracy books were slanting everything one way, and weren't trying to be straight with their readers.

So I still have confidence that Robert can find the truth if he really wants to. The question is, of course, can he handle the truth?

A punk stuck a rifle out a window and killed the president. Maybe in 1963 that was hard to fathom, but today? With Columbine, The Texas Tower shootings, the DC Sniper, the Norway shootings by Breivik, the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, not to mention the attempts on the lives of Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and the murder of John Lennon - I really don't understand what's so hard to fathom that a lone nut could accomplish this.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Below is Robert's list of his 40+ witnesses who confirm an exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head. I have compiled other's comments and added some of my own. Please feel free to add to this if you have more information to maintain a living list. At the moment, fully 20 of the 44 do not claim what Robert says they claim or have at least made conflicting remarks.

This is an important point. Some of these witnesses did state a wound to the back of the head. But many of these statements are incomplete. Put in context, their statements are not as clear cut as Robert would have us believe. A few of the witnesses have changed their statements over the years, and some have recanted their statements of a rear head wound. So is it fair to include them now? If you want to take their most recent statement or the statement they gave immediately after November 22, 1963 is up to you. But whatever you decide it should apply consistently to all witnesses. It is not fair to cherry pick comments to suit a particular view point. So if you want to add comments that confirms a rear exit wound, go ahead. But leave the existing comments as it is important for everyone to see the full picture, even if a witness contradicts himself.

To be fair, most of the witnesses are trying to be honest in my opinion. In the stress and confusion of the time, eyewitness testimony is fragile. For example, at Parkland the President was never turned over. He remained on his back the entire time. The doctors stated they were trying to save his life, not conduct a forensic examination. It is easy to see how a body on its back, with skin folded over and massive amounts of blood dripping down, can confuse nature of the wound. At Dealey Plaza, witnesses reported a wound to the back of the head, some to the front, some say a shot from behind, some say a shot from the front. This is to be expected. This is why the objetive evidence such as photos, autopsy reports, etc. are important to establish truth. One cannot discount these pieces of evidence on the basis of their being contradicted by some of the witnesses below. Which is why documenting any contradictions in statements is important.


Witnesses at Parkland

1. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

“Yes, sir.” –Reply to WC testimony question of the autopsy doctors’ opinion that the president’s skull indicated an entry wound at the back of the head and an exit wound at the center of the skull was consistent with his observations at Parkland.

2. ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe the condition of the back of the head?

Dr. McClelland. Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged.

“The way the wound was describe by Mr. Jenkins squares very well with what I saw. I think that the reason my wound [in an earlier drawing] seems lower was because of the hair hanging down over part of it.”

3. MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC—Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit: "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

"The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal [side] region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital."

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, "The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum/and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)
On March 5, 1981, C. James Carrico sent a letter to Ben Bradlee (Jr.) of THE BOSTON GLOBE responding to a query from Bradlee. Bradlee had apparently asked him about the standard conspiracist claim that the doctors saw the "back of the head" blown out, and that this contradicted the autopsy photos.

Carrico told Bradlee that:

". . . there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is incompatible with the injury as I remember it."
"I guess I have to say I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. . . . The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn't do that, nor did I see anyone else do that."

5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:

"I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..."

"I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound…I did not look at it that closely. . . . But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where the wound started or finished."

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician

"large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there."

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?

Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull fragments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.

8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician

"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."

Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain.

Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even a trained observer can be wrong." Other evidence, including the testimony of the autopsists and the photos of the brain make it clear that neither Peters nor any of the other doctors could have seen
cerebellum.

". . . I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear."

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

"Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician

"...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing". (WC-V6:44)

"He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was the wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back."

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD

There is no evidence that Dr. Grossman was in the trauma room to observe the President’s wounds. He did not file a report as requested of everyone present, and he is not mentioned as being present in anyone else’s report.

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing...”

14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine

15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern

16. PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse

17. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL

“I could see the back of his head and there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm.”

18. NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON


Witnesses at Bethesda


19. GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid,

20. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

Assassination Records Review Board: Did you tell Mr. Lifton that the wound was in the occiput or the occipital region?
Stringer: I don’t remember telling him that, no.
ARRB: Was there a wound in the occipital region of the President?
Stringer: Yes, the entry.
ARRB: By ‘the entry’, you mean what?
Stringer: Where the bullet went.

21. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

22. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

23. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

24. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

25. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle

The drawing that Lipsey made for the HSCA in 1978 shows the wound at the side of the head, not the back.

26. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

27. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

Custer made a drawing for the Assassination Records Review Board and shows the wound at the side of the head, not the back.

28. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

29. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

30. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

31, SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER

32. FLOYD RIEBE

33. JAMES C. JENKINS


Witnesses at Dealey Plaza


34.Ken O'Donnell

35. DAVE POWERS

36. Gov. Connally

37. PHIL WILLIS

38. MARILYN WILLIS

39. LINDA WILLIS

40. ROSEMARY WILLIS

41. BEVERLY OLIVER

There's no evidence she was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting or anywhere near enough to see anything of note. These claims are questionable for another reason -- there's no evidence she came forward to tell any story about the assassination until years after the event.

42. ED HOFFMAN

There's no evidence he was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting or anywhere near enough to see anything of note. These claims are questionable for another reason -- there's no evidence he came forward to tell any story about the assassination until years after the event.

Told the FBI he saw two men running from the TSBD then went back to claim he couldn't have because a fence was in the way.

43. BILL NEWMAN

“And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”
"that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear..."

44. GAYLE NEWMAN
"I saw blood all over the side of his head" (Sheriff's office affidavit: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gnewman.htm)

"he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear. ... The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side..." (Shaw testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/newmfsh.htm)
 
Monza said:
Below is Robert's list of his 40+ witnesses who confirm an exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head...
Click to expand...


37. PHIL WILLIS
Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you actually observe the President when he was hit in head?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I did not. I couldn't see that well, and I was more concerned about the shots coming from that building. The minute the third shot was fired, I screamed, hoping the policeman would hear me, to ring that building because it had to come from there. Being directly across the street from the building, made it much more clear to those standing there than the people who were on the side of the street where the building was.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you thought you had picked out a particular building at the time when you heard shots?
Mr. WILLIS. Absolutely.
Mr. LIEBELER. What building was that?
Mr. WILLIS. The Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were pretty sure?
Mr. WILLIS. I felt certain. I even looked for smoke, and I knew it came from high up....
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

Testimony to HSCA:
33) During his testimony, Willis was asked if at the time of the shots he looked in the direction of the railroad tracks which go across the triple underpass. (97) Willis stated that he saw policemen and spectators there, but that lie saw no evidence of shots coming from that area.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_DealeyPlaza.pdf

Shaw Trial:
Q: Mr. Willis, you say that to the best of your recollection, in considering the circumstances of excitement, that you heard three shots, is that right, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now as I understand it, Mr. Willis, you were standing here at the point indicated by the flag with your name on it on State Exhibit-35, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, by that tree.
Q: And you say you were looking down here, and by down here do you mean down Stemmons Freeway?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you say the shots came from your right, is that correct?
A: They sounded as if they did.
...Q: Was the Texas Book Depository to your right?
A: Yes, sir.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_pshaw.htm


38. MARILYN WILLIS
Mrs. Willis did not testify to the WC. She was called to testify at the Shaw trial:
Q: Did you have an unobstructed view of President Kennedy at the time of the third shot?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Mrs. Willis, would you please describe for the Gentlemen of the Jury and the Court what you saw as a result and as the effects of this third shot?
A: On the third shot his head exploded and went back and to the left.
Q: Did you observe anything, anything other than the explosion?
A: It exploded like a red halo.
...
Q: Did you at the time you observed the explosion of the President's head, did you see anything leave the President's head?
A: Yes, it seemed to be a matter of some type from his head.
Q: What was the direction of this matter as you were able to observe?
A: Back.
Q: Would that be to the backwards left or to the backwards right as he was seated in the car?
A: To his left.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_mshaw.htm


39. LINDA WILLIS
Testimony to Warren Commission at age 15.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?
Miss WILLIS. Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.
...
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the President get hit in the head?
Miss WILLIS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You actually saw the President get hit that way?
Miss WILLIS. Yes.
...
Mr. LIEBELER. Now when you saw the President get hit in the head, did you hear any more shots after that?
Miss. WILLIS. Yes; the first one, I heard the first shot come and then he slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went, and then the third one, and that was the last one that hit him in the head.
Mr. LIEBELER. You only heard three shots altogether?
Miss WILLIS. Yes; that was it.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you don't think there were any more shots after he got hit in the head?
Miss WILLIS. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you recognize the noises that you heard as shots right away?
Miss WILLIS. No; when the first shot rang out, I thought, well, it's probably fireworks, because everybody is glad the President is in town. Then I realized it was too loud and too close to be fireworks, and then when I saw, when I realized that the President was falling over, I knew he had been hit. But I didn't know how badly.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_linda.htm


40. ROSEMARY WILLIS
Ten years old at time of assassination. Did not testify to WC or in Shaw trial. First statement was as a married woman to HSCA at age 25 (below):
(27) The committee interviewed Willis' daughter, Rose Mary Willis, on 'November 8, 1978, at her home in Dallas . Ms. Willis stated that she was present with her father and a sister in the area of the grass section of the plaza at the time of the Presidential motorcade on November 22, 1963. (80) 31s. Willis explained that as the President's car approached, she ran alongside the limousine almost to the triple underpass. (81)
(28) Ms. Willis stated that during that time, she noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." (82) One was a man near the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening or closing the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. (83) The other was a person who was standing just
behind the concrete wall near the triple underpass. (84) That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."(85) Ms. Willis further described the location of this person as the corner section of the white concrete wall between the area of photographer Abraham Zapruder's right side and the top of the concrete stairway leading up to the center of the grassy knoll. (86)
(29) Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. (87) She gave no information on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset when the policemen in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots came from ; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll. (88)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_DealeyPlaza.pdf

Hank
 
Last edited:
Monza said:
Below is Robert's list of his 40+ witnesses who confirm an exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head....
Click to expand...


Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell were two of JFK's aides. They were in the motorcade behind the presidential limo.

35. DAVE POWERS
Affadavit only:
At that time we were traveling very slowly, no more than 12 miles an hour. In accordance with my custom, I was very much concerned about our timing and at just about that point I looked at my watch and noted that it was almost exactly 12:30 p.m., Which was the time we were due at the Trade Mart. I commented to Ken O'Donnell that it was 12:30 and we would only be about five minutes late when we arrived at the Trade Mart. Shortly thereafter the first shot went off and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President's head and had the sickening sound of a grapefruit splattering against the side of a wall. The total time between the first and third shots was about 5 or 6 seconds. My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass. This may have resulted from my feeling, when I looked forward toward the overpass, that we might have ridden into an ambush.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/powers1.htm

36. KENNETH O'DONNELL
Testimony to WC:
Mr. SPECTER. How many shots were there in all?
Mr. O'DONNELL. Three.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the total time which elapsed from the first shot to the last shot?
Mr. O'DONNELL. I would say 5 to 6 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. And was there any distinguishable tempo to the shots?
Mr. O'DONNELL. Yes; the first two came almost simultaneously, came one right after the other, there was a slight hesitation, then the third one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was your reaction as to the source of the shots, if you had one?
Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any reaction by any of the other people around in any specific direction?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The agents all turned to the rear. I would think, watching the reaction of the President when the shot--the first shot hit--that it would be automatic it would have to have come from the rear. I think any experienced agent would make that assumption immediately.
Mr. SPECTER. And was the reaction of the agents which you have referred to as coming from the rear, to the right rear or to the left rear?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The reaction I note would be right rear. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm
 
Monza said:
Below is Robert's list of his 40+ witnesses who confirm an exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head. I have compiled other's comments and added some of my own. Please feel free to add to this if you have more information to maintain a living list. At the moment, fully 20 of the 44 do not claim what Robert says they claim or have at least made conflicting remarks.

This is an important point. Some of these witnesses did state a wound to the back of the head. But many of these statements are incomplete. Put in context, their statements are not as clear cut as Robert would have us believe. A few of the witnesses have changed their statements over the years, and some have recanted their statements of a rear head wound. So is it fair to include them now? If you want to take their most recent statement or the statement they gave immediately after November 22, 1963 is up to you. But whatever you decide it should apply consistently to all witnesses. It is not fair to cherry pick comments to suit a particular view point. So if you want to add comments that confirms a rear exit wound, go ahead. But leave the existing comments as it is important for everyone to see the full picture, even if a witness contradicts himself.

To be fair, most of the witnesses are trying to be honest in my opinion. In the stress and confusion of the time, eyewitness testimony is fragile. For example, at Parkland the President was never turned over. He remained on his back the entire time. The doctors stated they were trying to save his life, not conduct a forensic examination. It is easy to see how a body on its back, with skin folded over and massive amounts of blood dripping down, can confuse nature of the wound. At Dealey Plaza, witnesses reported a wound to the back of the head, some to the front, some say a shot from behind, some say a shot from the front. This is to be expected. This is why the objetive evidence such as photos, autopsy reports, etc. are important to establish truth. One cannot discount these pieces of evidence on the basis of their being contradicted by some of the witnesses below. Which is why documenting any contradictions in statements is important.


Witnesses at Parkland

1. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

“Yes, sir.” –Reply to WC testimony question of the autopsy doctors’ opinion that the president’s skull indicated an entry wound at the back of the head and an exit wound at the center of the skull was consistent with his observations at Parkland.

2. ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe the condition of the back of the head?

Dr. McClelland. Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged.

“The way the wound was describe by Mr. Jenkins squares very well with what I saw. I think that the reason my wound [in an earlier drawing] seems lower was because of the hair hanging down over part of it.”

3. MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC—Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit: "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

"The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal [side] region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital."

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, "The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum/and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)
On March 5, 1981, C. James Carrico sent a letter to Ben Bradlee (Jr.) of THE BOSTON GLOBE responding to a query from Bradlee. Bradlee had apparently asked him about the standard conspiracist claim that the doctors saw the "back of the head" blown out, and that this contradicted the autopsy photos.

Carrico told Bradlee that:

". . . there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is incompatible with the injury as I remember it."
"I guess I have to say I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. . . . The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn't do that, nor did I see anyone else do that."

5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:

"I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..."

"I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound…I did not look at it that closely. . . . But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where the wound started or finished."

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician

"large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there."

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?

Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull fragments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.

8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician

"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."

Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain.

Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even a trained observer can be wrong." Other evidence, including the testimony of the autopsists and the photos of the brain make it clear that neither Peters nor any of the other doctors could have seen
cerebellum.

". . . I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear."

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

"Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician

"...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing". (WC-V6:44)

"He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was the wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back."

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD

There is no evidence that Dr. Grossman was in the trauma room to observe the President’s wounds. He did not file a report as requested of everyone present, and he is not mentioned as being present in anyone else’s report.

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing...”

14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine

15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern

16. PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse

17. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL

“I could see the back of his head and there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm.”

18. NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON


Witnesses at Bethesda


19. GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid,

20. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

Assassination Records Review Board: Did you tell Mr. Lifton that the wound was in the occiput or the occipital region?
Stringer: I don’t remember telling him that, no.
ARRB: Was there a wound in the occipital region of the President?
Stringer: Yes, the entry.
ARRB: By ‘the entry’, you mean what?
Stringer: Where the bullet went.

21. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

22. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

23. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

24. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

25. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle

The drawing that Lipsey made for the HSCA in 1978 shows the wound at the side of the head, not the back.

26. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

27. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

Custer made a drawing for the Assassination Records Review Board and shows the wound at the side of the head, not the back.

28. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

29. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

30. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

31, SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER

32. FLOYD RIEBE

33. JAMES C. JENKINS


Witnesses at Dealey Plaza


34.Ken O'Donnell

35. DAVE POWERS

36. Gov. Connally

37. PHIL WILLIS

38. MARILYN WILLIS

39. LINDA WILLIS

40. ROSEMARY WILLIS

41. BEVERLY OLIVER

There's no evidence she was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting or anywhere near enough to see anything of note. These claims are questionable for another reason -- there's no evidence she came forward to tell any story about the assassination until years after the event.

42. ED HOFFMAN

There's no evidence he was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting or anywhere near enough to see anything of note. These claims are questionable for another reason -- there's no evidence he came forward to tell any story about the assassination until years after the event.

Told the FBI he saw two men running from the TSBD then went back to claim he couldn't have because a fence was in the way.

43. BILL NEWMAN

“And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”
"that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear..."

44. GAYLE NEWMAN
"I saw blood all over the side of his head" (Sheriff's office affidavit: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gnewman.htm)

"he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear. ... The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side..." (Shaw testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/newmfsh.htm)
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
JayUtah said:
Pathetic.

First, please don't "break it down to the essentials." I taught computer graphics and imaging for two years at the University of Utah, the school whose graduates brought you Pixar and Adobe Photoshop. PM me your contact information if you to verify that through the department office. Simplifications and glosses are not sufficiently rigorous to determine the strength and validity of Wilson's purported method. So make with the details or admit that you cannot.

Second, I got this much from reading the book on Wilson's work. What can you do to expound on it?

"Translates the 30 shades of gray..." No, the human eye is capable of perceiving much more tonal variation than that, between 100 and 500 depending on lighting. Translates them from what to what, Robert?

"Turns them into 256 shades of gray." His miracle breakthrough is 8-bit luminosity quantization? I hate to burst your bubble, but computer video capture hardware does that automatically. It's how the hardware works, in fact. It just quantizes the Y channel of the YUV composite video signal according to a characteristic response curve. What was Wilson's response curve? Was it custom, derived perhaps from considerable experimentation? Or was it simply the standard logarithmic curve? Please tell us, Robert. Or show us where Wilson explained it.

So thus far, we have nothing more exotic than what your desktop scanner does when scanning in B&W mode.

Plus, the way you've phrased it raises a serious problem either with his method or with your explanation of it. You suggest that the process takes the 30 shades of gray and translates them into 256 shades of gray. That is, taking values quantized to the discrete range 0-29 and remapping them to discrete values 0-255. Do you understand why that doesn't work? There isn't enough variation in the source signal to produce variation that is meaningful in the result signal. For every single value in the source signal, there are about 8 possible values in the destination signal. What data does the algorithm use to determine which of the 8 possible values is the right one?

In short, you're claiming something that's one of the known impossibilities in digital image analysis: putting back information that was lost through quantization. Congratulations: Wilson just failed Digital Image Processing 101. Or you did. Do you want to take responsibility for it? Or shall I pin it on Wilson?

"Then assigns a color to each one." Color meaning hue? Or color meaning a combination of hue. value, and saturation? What is the significance of the colors assigned, and how does the system decide what color should go with what shade of gray?

Science uses false-color images all the time. Because the eye perceives hue more readily than luminosity, single-dimensioned data in a 2D or 3D spatial distribution is mapped to hues. Also, for 3D spatially distributed data, luminosity would be incorrectly perceived as shading, hence we use hue. One can map actual photometric luminosity to hue, but why? We'll come back to this. In engineering, for example, we will collect stress or strain information on a beam and render it in false color where the wavelength of the hue is mapped to some selected range of strain readings. Thermal imaging works that way too, where infrared sensor are mapped to hue.

But we use hue only. Hue is a one-dimensional concept, and we map it to other one-dimensional concepts simply in order to amplify very small differences in them, where the differences would be considered significant. Most scientific people eventually get a sixth sense for the visible spectrum, where red represents one end and violet represents the other end of what may be some concept like strain. Green, being in the middle, is "average variance" of the scale you choose.

Here's an example of thermographic false-color imaging.
http://mmi.oregonstate.edu/pearl/research/infared-summary

Halfway down this page is an example of false color used to encode flow velocity in a complex fluid dynamics phenomenon. Note the legend telling us how to interpret the color in terms of the depicted phenomenon.
http://grainflowresearch.mae.cornell.edu/geophysics/suspension_currents/suspension_currents.html

Halfway down this page is a depiction of calculated stress at each point on a mechanical part subjected to load. Typically red hues represent the largest values while blue-black hues represent the smallest.
http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/coldgains/

Here the incident intensity of a streetlight vendor's product is rendered in false color. This is not the same as optical luminosity of a photograph of the street.
http://www.valopaa.com/references/applications/street_lighting

In the book, Wilson claims that false coloration simply allows the viewer to see better the subtle variations in value. But those variations are subtle for a reason: they're subtle in real life. Then Wilson adds the illusion of a third dimension, putting quantized areas of the image into a false relief. Further, he selectively requantizes the image, removing intermediate quantized levels. This has the end result of creating a false sense of edge, which in turn creates a false sense of form. The edges he creates through his interactive manipulation of the image are not the actual edges of objects in the photograph. But that's what he interprets them as.

Up to this point, none of Wilson's "analysis" transcends anything that can't have been done by a 12-year-old fiddling idly with Adobe Photoshop sliders. There is no expertise involved, and indeed the demonstration of substantial lack of expertise by failing to realize the perceptual effects of his manipulations.

The key to this hokum is where the book mentions that the final identification of materials and forms come from "Tom's trained eye." In other words, none of this pseudoscientific attempt and image processing matters a tinker's dam; it's all Wilson's opinion. The whole magic comes from Wilson wiggling sliders until his pareidolic sense "sees" something. What's so obviously comical from the book is that he's working from a half-toned print copy of the Moorman photo! He magnifies it to absurdly impractical scale, then quantizes and requantizes the half-toning dots interactively until the artifacts of their confluence trigger his pareidolic reflex.

Robert, over the past 10 years I've had no end of people telling me they could miraculously extract images of alien artifacts, stagehands, crystal cities, backdrops, studio lighting by fiddling idly with images in a way that does nothing more than amplify quantization steps and create a false sense of significance in them. This is what Wilson is doing.

His method is hopelessly subjective, completely unscientific, irreproducible, and based entirely on his pareidolia. It falls fully into at least half a dozen of the same highly amusing traps that have claimed most amateur image "analysts" over the years. And it's painfully clear that you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss Wilson's findings.

So let's sum up. You can't correctly or meaningfully describe Wilson's work; you can't explain how it achieves the results it does; you can't get around the admission that the method relies entirely on "Tom's trained eye;" you can't differentiate this method from simple random Photoshop slider-twiddling -- yet you want us to accept this "evidence" on its face? Um, no.

Conversely, you can't back up a single claim you've made about Wilson's expertise, and thus the validity of his "trained eye."

Where does that leave us?
Click to expand...

That leaves you with your head stuck firmly in sand. Wilson explained the process in its essentials. You disagree. Bully for you. Perhaps US Steel kept someone on its payroll doing computer imaging for product defects for the hell of it.
 
Robert Prey said:
That leaves you with your head stuck firmly in sand. Wilson explained the process in its essentials. You disagree. Bully for you. Perhaps US Steel kept someone on its payroll doing computer imaging for product defects for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

How are steel product defects relatable to photography?
What evidence do you have Wilson ever worked fot the company?
 
HSienzant said:
You are asserting they chose to call her.
You tell me why.

I do know she was not at the autopsy, and worked at NPC (Naval Photographic Center) in 1963.
Her link to the actual autopsy and to the autopsy photographs is tenuous at best.

Perhaps they only chose to call her because she came forward with her recollection after the ARRB was formed, and contacted them and asked to testify. I have no clue. It is not covered in her testimony before the ARRB that I can see.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/spencer.htm

A good place to start would be to ascertain why the ARRB took her testimony. If she contacted them first and merely volunteered to testify, it wouldn't support her recollection any. Asking me why they chose to call her to testify is simply misdirection on your part, and another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Again, *YOU* need to document that Spencer's recollection - 34 years after the fact - is valid and not just a false memory. To me, a recollection a third of a century after the fact isn't worth a damn.

Neither is it worth a damn to the man who took her testimony, Jeremy Gunn:

​

His full statement in a speech at Stanford is here:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/24th_Issue/gunn.html

Of course, you don't want to hear that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, because your entire case is built around throwing out the good evidence and keeping only the unreliable eyewitness testimony.

You throw out the Z-film because some witnesses remember something different.
You throw out the autopsy photos because some witnesses remember something different.
You throw out the rifle because some witnesses remember something different.
You throw out the shells found on the sixth floor because some witnesses remember something different.
etc. etc.

In short, your case is nonsense from start to finish.

Hank
Click to expand...

Baloney. I throw out the autopsy photos because they have been proven to be fake.

I throw out the rifle because there is no evidence that Oswald fired it, or even took delivery of it.

I do not throw out the shells "found" on the 6th floor which proves nothing.

In short, the purpose of a frame-up and a cover-up is to delude people like you and you fell for it.
 
Robert Prey said:
That leaves you with your head stuck firmly in sand.
Click to expand...

Nope. I notice you haven't actually addressed any of the points I raised. Whose head is in the sand, Robert?

Wilson explained the process in its essentials. You disagree.
Click to expand...

No, I refuted it. If you don't understand the refutation, that's your problem. You're in my territory now, Robert. Are you competent to discuss the points I raised? Or must you concede that I am better able than you to determine whether or not Tom Wilson's findings are valid?

Perhaps US Steel kept someone on its payroll doing computer imaging for product defects for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. The U.S. Steel system was developed by Honeywell under contract and although several engineers are named in connection with it, Tom Wilson's name is not among them. There is no evidence Wilson performed any such work for U.S. Steel.

He's not an expert, Robert. Deal with it. His claims to expertise are bogus. His method is provably bogus.

Fine contour extraction from a halftone? That's like dressing in a tutu to play football, Robert. It's a glaring case of amateurism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom