Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers

[Peter Lemkin]

While I was not privy to the the information from Wilson about the pristine and mollested autopsy photos, he repeatedly told me he had all of the standard and some not-publicly seen materials with which to work. Many were excited by his original lecture presentation and photos poured-in for analysis. I too sent one - and I guess most here know the story. His techniques are a modification of some used in industry and by the scientific community [for other things entirely]. As Jack said, he was very secretive and too naive for his own good. I too don't think anything sinister should be read into this - he felt [naively] he could be a one man army against those who pulled-off the hoax [perhaps not realizing how powerful they STILL were]. He left several nearly complete depositories of his work - I know the location of three - there are a few others. I have worked for some years to get permission to open one to responsible researchers. So far inertia or fear or I-don't-know-what has made it not yet happen. This discussion above has made me this morning fire off another set of emails and letters - I'll keep the Forum informed. Once we have the set of materials we will see if he also described his exact technique. I know if only generally - but what I know makes sense. I know there are matched sets of photos [or portions of photos] - the original; other photos [if any] that show the same feature' and then a whole series of his computer enhanced / computer disected images. A very savvy computer person could, given these and the general description of the process I [and others] have, back-engineer the process and test it. As I said, Wecht knows [but at the moment can not discuss the details of] that Wilson, using the exact same methods was many times approved in Court as an expert witness on the veracity and information within forensic photos - on other cases. That alone speaks volumes. There are two factors at play. One is if his technique could find information not available to the eye and by other means, and second if he applied rational interpretations to what new things he found. In my mind the answer to the first is yes; to the second we will have to see the materials to judge. Actually, this research I started the thread off with from Dartmouth is different - but I see no reason a computer can't be used to look for both at the same time. That said, most images Tom looked at were made on photograhic emulsion, and not computer images - but not all. His claims on being able to prove the official version false in Court were sincere - his method of attack was that of Don Quixote - without even his trusty attendant. Jack was one of the very few who were given any information about what he had found. Wecht was another. I know of a few others. To most, Tom simply said 'wait until my Court case' - which was easily dismissed from Court before it ever saw the light of day...... Now it is our job to carry forth his work and its results. Sadly, it has languished all this time.