Pictures don't lie, we're told, but can we always believe our eyes?
by Dave Reitzes
Hard evidence, it's probably safe to say, is universally considered more reliable than eyewitness testimony. But the interpretation of hard evidence -- such as seemingly subjective analyses of photographic evidence -- can be a cause of concern as well.
Is seeing always believing? The numerous theories born from scrutiny of extreme blow-ups of the Moorman Polaroid and the insistence of one researcher, Charles Wallace, that the Dillard photograph of the Texas School Book Depository shows a figure in the "sniper's nest" window some moments after the JFK shooting (when Lee Harvey Oswald could no have been not there) are two examples of the way that photographic evidence can be put to questionable use.
I'd like to put together a Web page demonstrating some of the dangers of overemphasizing the value of photographic interpretation, but it will be some time before I am prepared to do the job properly. In the meantime, I've put up this temporary page offering what I consider to be two lessons in the hazards of putting too much faith in what we see.
My intention is not to insist that anyone in particular is wrong about what they might allege various photographs to depict, but merely to suggest that some caution is in order.
Someone to watch over me?
This photo was published in Swift, the newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Is it proof positive of divine intervention, or should we instead try to see the forest for the trees?
Hark, the Herald Aliens Sing?
This photograph, dubbed the "Alien Choir," was taken by an Alabama resident on September 29, 2000. Does it depict a gaggle of otherworldly beings, or could there be a more down-to-earth explanation?
Please allow a moment for the images to load . . .
