#1
Conspiracy JFK Forum
A Deeper Darker Truth by Donald T. Phillips
A Deeper Darker Truth by Donald T. Phillips
A review of mine from 2009 as this book has been discussed on this forum:
Faces in windows, shadows and leaves, December 12, 2009
By Patrick Collins
This review is from: A Deeper, Darker Truth (Paperback)
Tom Wilson's use of a specific technology applied to the JFK assassination leaves one asking some important questions. Firstly in a book purporting to demonstrate that assassins can be seen in both the TSBD SE corner 6th floor window and on the Grassy Knoll, one could reasonably expect that the technology behind this "discovery" would be explained in some detail by the author. It is the foundation of the books essential presentations. It is not explained in any detail however.
The technology is essentially based on passing light through images to detect further images that cannot be detected by the human eye. Its not new technology however. So take for example a photo - the Powell photo - of the 6th floor window taken moments after the shots were fired. This goes from being a picture of a partially open window, a box and little else to one showing the image of a man wearing a beret, some kind of radio equipment and a scar or tattoo on his face. This stretches the imagination somewhat. There is no analysis on the size of the image being consistent with a human head and there is no mention of the type of camera used to take the picture and if the film stock, exposure, focusing etc could have captured such an image.
The author also presents us with an image of an eagle badge used by Police from Paris Texas. Yet the image on the actual photograph is the size of a pin prick or less. And it has been established that the Polaroid camera used could not capture such detail. How - simply by taking the identical model of camera, using film stock of the time and even taking the picture in better light - when a person is positioned on the knoll behind the fence, the film does not show that person - let alone their hat or badge - to be there ! Why - because the technical capability of the camera was not of sufficient quality to capture such an image. It seems Mr. Phillips has not done his homework.
There is additionally a flawed scientific premise on which this book is based - namely that camera and film technology of the time would have captured images for a future technology to unveil. If the images were not captured at the time, no technology will ever find them. We are talking about a bog standard camera, standard lens and an image in shadows behind an open window that represents a tiny fraction of the photographs total image.
Author Donald Phillips also gives quite some focus to the Moorman Polaroid picture taken a fraction of a second after the fatal head shot. On closer inspection the technology reveals a man in uniform firing at the president. This of course is familiar territory - Badge Man. The problem is this, it has been determined that the Badge Man image - based on the size of adult bystanders in the photo, known distances and sizes of other inanimate objects that the size of Badgeman is such that he is only about 3 ft tall or some 30 ft behind the Knoll fence and 12 ft in the air. This I am afraid is an established fact.
The author analyses many photographs in this book, including the Zapruder frames and autopsy photographs. Needles to say he presents as fact photographic alteration and evidence of a frontal head shot without truly backing up his contentions with science.
I have the impression that Tom Wilson believed in what he thought was the truth in this case, but sincerity does not make an argument rational or logical. Donald Phillips tells an interesting story here about a man who believes he discovered that in the existing evidence lies the truth to this case, but it fails to convince.
Hands up I would probably on balance recommend the book to persons with a keen interest in this subject, but there are far better books on this subject to start with. It is probably a well intentioned work - the author is probably not going to get rich on this publication. The so called evidence presented here would not hold up in a first year university science class. It needs to be far more comprehensive if it has any leg to stand on.
Faces in windows, shadows and leaves, December 12, 2009
By Patrick Collins
This review is from: A Deeper, Darker Truth (Paperback)
Tom Wilson's use of a specific technology applied to the JFK assassination leaves one asking some important questions. Firstly in a book purporting to demonstrate that assassins can be seen in both the TSBD SE corner 6th floor window and on the Grassy Knoll, one could reasonably expect that the technology behind this "discovery" would be explained in some detail by the author. It is the foundation of the books essential presentations. It is not explained in any detail however.
The technology is essentially based on passing light through images to detect further images that cannot be detected by the human eye. Its not new technology however. So take for example a photo - the Powell photo - of the 6th floor window taken moments after the shots were fired. This goes from being a picture of a partially open window, a box and little else to one showing the image of a man wearing a beret, some kind of radio equipment and a scar or tattoo on his face. This stretches the imagination somewhat. There is no analysis on the size of the image being consistent with a human head and there is no mention of the type of camera used to take the picture and if the film stock, exposure, focusing etc could have captured such an image.
The author also presents us with an image of an eagle badge used by Police from Paris Texas. Yet the image on the actual photograph is the size of a pin prick or less. And it has been established that the Polaroid camera used could not capture such detail. How - simply by taking the identical model of camera, using film stock of the time and even taking the picture in better light - when a person is positioned on the knoll behind the fence, the film does not show that person - let alone their hat or badge - to be there ! Why - because the technical capability of the camera was not of sufficient quality to capture such an image. It seems Mr. Phillips has not done his homework.
There is additionally a flawed scientific premise on which this book is based - namely that camera and film technology of the time would have captured images for a future technology to unveil. If the images were not captured at the time, no technology will ever find them. We are talking about a bog standard camera, standard lens and an image in shadows behind an open window that represents a tiny fraction of the photographs total image.
Author Donald Phillips also gives quite some focus to the Moorman Polaroid picture taken a fraction of a second after the fatal head shot. On closer inspection the technology reveals a man in uniform firing at the president. This of course is familiar territory - Badge Man. The problem is this, it has been determined that the Badge Man image - based on the size of adult bystanders in the photo, known distances and sizes of other inanimate objects that the size of Badgeman is such that he is only about 3 ft tall or some 30 ft behind the Knoll fence and 12 ft in the air. This I am afraid is an established fact.
The author analyses many photographs in this book, including the Zapruder frames and autopsy photographs. Needles to say he presents as fact photographic alteration and evidence of a frontal head shot without truly backing up his contentions with science.
I have the impression that Tom Wilson believed in what he thought was the truth in this case, but sincerity does not make an argument rational or logical. Donald Phillips tells an interesting story here about a man who believes he discovered that in the existing evidence lies the truth to this case, but it fails to convince.
Hands up I would probably on balance recommend the book to persons with a keen interest in this subject, but there are far better books on this subject to start with. It is probably a well intentioned work - the author is probably not going to get rich on this publication. The so called evidence presented here would not hold up in a first year university science class. It needs to be far more comprehensive if it has any leg to stand on.
| Messages In This Thread |
Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)