Read other letters about this article

• Monday, March 17, 2008 05:49 PM

  truth not in words

  This whole article seems sorely superficial in its attempt to debunk the value of images as evidence.

  The analogy between Kennedy's assassination and 9/11 is a silly one if used to uphold the view that no matter how many cameras and viewpoints we have of an event, we shall never reach a consensus about its true significance. Zapruder filmed at relatively close range what happened in one car. The cameras around the WTC were in greater number but they filmed two airplanes and two buildings from a much greater distance in an event that involved an enormously larger set of variables. So, proportionately, both events did not have the same image coverage: there is a marked disadvantage to the latter.

  Also, if the Hastorf-Cantril study had shown the Dartmouth and Princeton students a large number of closer, more detailed and revealing footage of that game, there would certainly have been a greater coincidence between the reports from the two camps, barring those made in bad faith. And let's not forget that there are more people in the world than Princeton and Dartmouth fans who're capable of assessing fair play.

  Mr Manjoo's attempt to discredit interpretations based on images willfully ignores that the question is never whether images can prove a point but rather how many images and what level of detail would be sufficient to ascertain truth.

  —PabloZumaran Read PabloZumaran's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel