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."

It is the primary device by which the creators of the Warren Commission
and the purveyors of its message hoped to play with our trust in order to
create the impression of truth.  It is very seductive. This, in my opinion,
was the method behind the formation of the Warren Commission which turned
it into a "pick-a-card, any card" kind of trick by which the FBI and other
executive agencies were able to force a card, their card, that Oswald was
the lone gunman, onto a group of otherwise unwitting politicians (redundant).

In other words, the WC was set up as a pseudo jury.  We were supposed to,
and did, trust the reputation and integrity of those on that jury.  The
only problem was that this jury didn't operate with the high standards
employed by ordinary citizens when acting as jurors.  We observe those
standards not because we are good people, but because it is not possible to
arrive at anything resembling the truth without doing so.  The quality
of the results of the Warren Commission directly reflects the quality
of its standards and methods -- the pseudo jury arrived at a pseudo truth.

Subsequent attempts to shore up the conclusions of the WC have been
built upon the same technique.  The Clark panel, Rockefeller Commission,
etc. are all attempts to wow us with expert hearsay.  We are still unable
to examine first-hand much of the evidence in this case.

The real truth is that to some there is plenty of evidence to indicate that
the photos are fakes and to others there is not. To me, what the Clark
panel, or Rockefeller Commission thinks is irrelevant.

What do YOU think?  Are you able to get access to the data needed to make
an intelligent decision?


Paul Collacchi