From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Oswald's Photograph
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:07:27 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <21JUL199214221293@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu
(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--
|> 	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.

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.

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

An example is the spectroscopy data associated with the ballistic reports.  
Weisberg tried for years to obtain this data.  In fact, the Freedom of
Information act was strengthened by Congress who cited Weisberg's suit
as an impetus for its action.  Another clear example is the omission of the 
autopsy photographs.  This is not the only or most pressing example.  Often,
testimony and statements of "sensitive" witnesses is forbidden even to be
taken.  The third tramp, aka "Carswell", was known to the CIA who located
and interviewed him and then submitted an all but useless picture to the
HSCA.  Clearly the HSCA was given no opportunity to establish whether in
fact "Carswell" was one of the tramps, to examine or cross examine him, to
secure an alibi, to obtain relevant pictures of Carswell.  Their opinion 
was made blindly, without hearing testimony.  How could such an opinion 
possibly enjoy respect? 

I have no objection to expert opinion per se, but only when presented with
the underlying data, so that we can examine the data for ourselves.  It gives
us the opportunity to check the experts, and to obtain other experts who can
attempt to replicate their reasoning.  Without the data, one need only find
a handful of obedient men with PhD's in order to fool millions.

As long as the underlying data is hidden, expert opinion is nothing but
propaganda.


|> 
|> 	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.
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?  Clearly Belin enjoys
the cloak of official authority.



Paul Collacchi

BTW, I read in High Treason II that Marina still claims to have taken pictures
of Lee and the rifle, but not the ones found by the Warren Commission!  She
says that her back was toward the stairway appearing to the right in all the 
WC exhibits.

In other words, she did take pictures, but apparently not those.  Doesn't that
just take the cake?                        	

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,misc.legal