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.