From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:41:00 GMT

(Paul Collacchi) writes...
>(Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>|> 	It is quite difficult, and sometimes impossible, for anyone
>|> 	following the assassination controversy to judge the evidence.
>|> 	In some cases, we don't have access to the primary evidence--
>|>	In other cases, we just don't have the expertise to fully evaluate
>|> 	the data. Therefore, we are obliged to consider the opinions
>|> 	of various "experts." There is nothing essentially wrong with
>|> 	this...

>Nicely put.

>You're right in asserting that there's nothing "wrong" in using expert 
>testimony.  The traditional manner in which this is done is to first allow
>a prospective juror to see, hear, touch, etc the primary evidence AND then
>permit expert testimony.  Remember, Mitchell, that the data itself IS a 
>primary reason upon which experts base conclusions. In most cases, raw
>scientific data itself has been denied to the public.

	I generally agree. I would certainly like to see all of the
	withheld autopsy materials, which are the only ramaining
	pieces of physical evidence that have been denied us. There
	are also the volumes of paperwork that were classified by
	the WC and the HSCA, though I doubt they'll really yield
	much. 

>In other words, we can't examine the most persuasive reasons upon which
>the experts have based their opinions.

	The debate over the authenticity of the backyard photos, the
	subject of this thread, however, is not so handicapped. Copies
	of CE133a/b/c are easy to get, and the National Archives will
	let you look at the originals, if you go through the red tape.
	The HSCA inlcudes a detailed presentation of their analysis, with	
	numerous figures and exhibits. The critics have generally
	tried their best to make their point. In comparison, 
	I find the House committee report to be vastly superior to
	the critics' arguments.


>|> 	As much as Paul claims that the WC uses expert testimony (and
>|> 	the consequent implied argument by authority) to obfuscate
>|> 	the "truth," the conspiracy theorists are no better, and
>|> 	often worse in this regard. 

>Not so nicely put.

>It is true that the methods of many conspiracy hounds is sadly lacking, some
>seem not to have any "method" at all, but surely you're not suggesting that
>Sylvia Meagher is perceived to be on an equal footing with The Rockefeller
>Commission.

	Some, hell, many people would put Ms Meagher above the
	RC.


>In my opinion, David Belin can't hold a candle to Ms. Meagher, but you wouldn't
>know that from reading the New York Times, who will publish just about anything
>that Belin writes and nothing that Meagher writes.  Why?  

	I believe the reason has something to do with Ms Meagher's being
	dead for some while. 

	Speaking on Meagher vs. Belin, there is a book of essays on the
	assassination, both pro- and anti-WC. Belin wrote one arcticle
	claiming that Sylvia M misinterpeted, misrepresented, or
	misquoted several WC documents. One example was Meagher's quote
	of a paragraph. Belin points out that Meagher left out a
	sentence, and this omission totally changed the meaning of
	the quoted material. In fact, Belin makes a good case at
	the expense of Meagher's candle. And wasn't Sylvia the person
	who made the big thing about a "left handed rifle?"
	


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2648 alt.conspiracy:9356 sci.skeptic:13144