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: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:22:00 GMT

(Paul Collacchi) writes...
>In article <16JUL199213401941@sigma.tamu.edu>, mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu
>(Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>|> 	Yes, but their conclusion is clear: they found no evidence of
>|> 	fakery in the photos. That is, there is no evidence that the
>|> 	photos are fakes.

>This leap of faith, from "an expert says that...." to "it is true that ..."
>is what I call the "emporer's new clothes effect." Rather than being 
>allowed to examine the evidence to make up your own mind, you are 
>enticed into believing what amounts to "expert hearsay."  Expert hearsay 
>is then taken for "truth."

	Perhaps you sould have paid more attention to the past
	discussion.

	The HSCA Photoanalysis panel's detailed report is available
	to anyone who wants to see it. The statements of Jack White,
	Malcom Thompsen, Robert Groden, et al concerning the matter
	are also free to study. I know enough about persective,
	photography, posture, etc to be able to judge most of the
	claims. I find, after reading all, that the HSCA report is
	far better argued, and far more solidly based than the critic's
	claims. I have been able to reproduce several of the HSCA
	panel's tests, most notably the vanishing point analysis,
	coming up with the same conclusions as the photographic panel.

	The critic's arguments are less persuasive. To begin with,
	they are littered with bad assumptions, for instance, the
	assertion that the shadows in the photo should be parallel.
	Then there are the stupid errors.  _High Treason_ and _Crossfire_
 	don't help their case by using Thompsen as a source, after he
	has deferred to the HSCA. Jack White makes the ludicrous claim
	that there is no grass in North Texas in March. It doesn't take
	long to realize that the critics are too often mistaken, too
	obsessed, or even just plain lying (though I beleive most
	assassination researchers are as honest as anyone else) to
	take very seriously.

	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--
	we can't, for instance, take the 6.5mm rifle out of the
	National Archives and do some test firing ourselves. 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, if the expert give us the resons for their opinion, so that
	we can judge the validity of their conclusions.

	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. 

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

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2591 alt.conspiracy:9258 sci.skeptic:12984