SwiftVets need computer animations to help sell their case

I wish the SwiftVets would invest, bigtime and right away, in the services of a first-rate computer animation firm.

So far I've seen one semi-decent (and still badly flawed) attempt by anyone to present in visual form the competing versions of events on 13Mar69 regarding Kerry's Bronze Star and the Rassmann rescue — that being WaPo's artist's drawing that accompanied Michael Dobbs' August 22 article.

But so, so much more could be done.  Imagine the best graphics and animations you've seen on, say, the History Channel as they've illustrated the progress of some great battle or the sinking of the Titanic and you'll get a sense of what I'm talking about:  maps, moving arrows, timelines, scale models.

With respect to those same events from 13Mar69 on the Bay Hap River, for example, a good computer animation firm could create multiple animated clips to show what was where, and when, under the various witnesses' versions of events.  One of the flaws in the WaPo drawing, for example, was the trench-looking line that marked where the artist had omitted an unspecified portion of the distance that Kerry's PCF 94 traveled from the fishing weir.  I don't fault the artist for that — he had to do something like that to make everything fit onto the page.  But it completely distorts the time-and-distance aspect of Kerry's version of events.

An animated graphic — yes, a cartoon — could zoom in and out, and could run a set of stop-watch numbers in the corner to demonstrate the time passage.  A cartoon could show how far Kerry's 1500 meters of fire actually would have actually taken him from the weir, for instance, and how much time it would have taken PCF 94 to travel that distance and back.  To be watchable, the cartoon would probably need to run a while in fast-forward, but that could still be done in ways that made it clear to the viewer how much time it would have taken for Kerry's version to be true.  The better one appreciates the times and distances, the more improbable it becomes that enemy fire could have been incoming without any boats or crew being hit by it.

An alternate version of the same cartoon could then show folks the events as described by Thurlow.

Understanding the SwiftVets' precise arguments requires one to visualize the scene and assess the relative probability and improbability of the competing accounts.  The more clearly the competing accounts can be visualized, the more confident the viewer becomes in his assessment as to which is more probable.

Similarly, animated cartoons using detailed maps could zoom in and out to show where the rivers and canals ran with respect to the Cambodian border, the locations of the Swift Boat bases, the places we know that Kerry's boat was on various dates, and therefore just how improbable/impossible it is that Kerry ever crossed into Cambodia to insert SEALs/CIA guys.

Constructing these kinds of computer-generated cartoons wouldn't be cheap — we're talking five or maybe low six-figure expenditures, I'm guessing.  Lawyers already use these sorts of things in trials now, but only in the big cases where the stakes justify the expense; and there's always a fight over admissibility, which usually comes down to how well the cartoons can be defended as being "fair."  Obviously, the SwiftVets would want to be as scrupulously fair as they could, just for reasons of credibility; but there's no judge in this dispute to bang his gavel and say, "Objection sustained!  The jury shall not view that cartoon!"

Even with skilled artists to help conceive and create them, the results would probably be too long to run in 30 second TV ads.  But this sort of stuff would be tailor-made for distribution through alternative media — and in particular, through the internet and through cable TV. 

I'm sure John O'Neill knows from his courtroom experience that talking heads and historical documents induce MEGO — mine eyes glazeth over — which means your audience, be it jurors or voters, zone out quickly if that's all you've got.  Plus they're ineffective in creating the mental images that need to be understood here.  When you've got a tough case to sell simply because it's outside ordinary people's daily experiences and therefore hard for them to conceptualize and visualize, MEGO is your worst enemy.

I think computer generated graphics would be a good investment.  It's time to get creative.

---------

Update (Mon Sep 6 @ 8:25am): Readers who have ideas about how graphics generally, and computer animated graphics in particular, might be used to help shed light on these issues are invited to leave those ideas in my comments here!