Instead of discussing "Pierre" in public, let's pm each other, because we all know how much he likes to stalk every post! He simply enjoys it! Just pm each other if ya'll wanna say something! We've clearly given him too much attention, he'll keep on making pointless threads, Pierre's an attention seeker!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
He gave the police his name
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Rosella View PostIt probably is. I've long since lost the plot about what Pierre means about anything. It's like trying to grasp a handful of mist. I just wish he'd stop with the metaphorical nonsense and the pseudo-intellectual BS and state what he actually means in his epistles in plain everyday English.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostI may be mistaken, but it seems to me that Pierre's theory is almost entirely dependent on his subjective interpretation of metaphorical language contained in communications sent, purportedly, by the killer.
Now some of these communications he claims have a "low validity". However, clearly not the communication, or "data source", that is the subject of this thread: despite the suspect's name appearing in only metaphorical form Pierre confidently asserts: "There is now hardly any doubt. I must have found him."
Is that a reasonable assessment? Or am I missing something?G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Pierre, how about your statistical analysis to find the probability of the killer's metaphorical name being in your data source? Was it higher than 0.1% after all?
Maybe I missed a thread or two in between, but I feel there are many loose ends to tie up first before starting new Chapman threads.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IchabodCrane View PostPierre, how about your statistical analysis to find the probability of the killer's metaphorical name being in your data source? Was it higher than 0.1% after all?
Maybe I missed a thread or two in between, but I feel there are many loose ends to tie up first before starting new Chapman threads.
Thanks a lot for reminding me. I will update you as soon as I have made it.
Regards, Pierre
Comment
Comment