But setting aside what was going through the mind of the individual Marine (because we don't know), what makes the photographers "open letter" any more accurate than anything else? In fact, I'd say it was less accurate in its conclusion about what happened simply because Sites had the luxury of hindsight when he crafted it. Now, I'm not saying Sites is wrong, but it still only represents his opinion on what happened. In fact, back when he released it in his blog, that was the glaring inconsistancy that I immediately noticed. I called it his own "Larry-Stuism." But if you re-read his "open letter," you'll notice that everything he describes sets up a pre-concieved opinion: from when he alone (among a group of highly trained Marines) noticed that the ammo was going to explode, to when he barks out orders to a Marine officer, concluding when he determines which Iraqi was more of a security risk. It reads like a cheesy 80's action flick, but instead of Arnold, it stars Sites himself, who of course wants the reader to buy his claim that he was the only objective pair of eyes on the battlefield. Again, I'm not claiming that Sites is any more, or any less correct than anyone else that day. However, Sites himself is not immune to the fallacy of perception, and his open letter certainly illustrates that.