Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I define a name as one biographical variable.

That is not valid in the context in which the statement was posted.

His address. His profession. But not his name as far as I know (or perhaps that is in it too, I havenīt bothered to analyse it).

Ah so you quote a source in support of an hypothesis, having not fully examined it.
Very poor research, that is not how a reputable scientist works.

Yes, and I define that as information about a person, his profession or name or address. And so on and so forth.

However Pierre, it is all about context and given the context you were writing in, you were comparing to something completely different, giving an impression they contained the same type of information.
That is patiently untrue!

The hypothesis is that it contains a name.

That may well be, we cannot know if the hypothesis is valid as you have not provided details, to say you have proved to yourself is not scientifically valid as you should know.

The issue I have and I will repeat it again and again is that given the context of your statement that the tin contained biographical data, the same as Rader had left, require more than a name, of which I repeat there is no scientific proof that such exists.

,

And if you start with the letters in Raderīs communication you will probably find a lot of names, even much more than from the pawn tickets.

Certainly it is a much longer communication!

And your point is?

Any information which is personal, which gives a clue/clues about a person, his ID, is what I define as biographical information in this case.

Here we really do disagree!
That may be true in some circumstances, however a name on its on is very limiting; many will have exactly the same name at an given point in history.

Therefore such is not biographical information, it is a random name with nothing to link it to anything else.

Again the issue is the context of the posting.
The inference was it contained the same type of information as that in the Rader communication. It does not!

Perhaps it is now clear to you that it is not "misleading"?

Sorry Pierre, the Rader communication is a completely different creature to the alleged 1888 message which you claim to have found.

My view is even clearer the statement was highly misleading.

What do you mean by "secure" and "testable"?

Good points Pierre.

I should have been more precise with the terms used, I will expand.

Actually said secure accurate and testable


Secure taken to mean of known Provence, provably not a fake and safe in that it cannot be altered.



Accurate in that the details in the source are not demonstrably wrong, for instance a document which claimed Stride was killed after Eddowes would not be accurate.



Testable, Yes I really could have used a better term.

I mean that others can look at the source and asses it, while not all those whom do so may agree with your conclusions about the source, they should be able to see how you arrived at a conclusion.



hope that is clearer.

all the best

steve

[David Orsam]

It was an answer to Steve who asked me if it is an anagram type of solution and I did not write the full expression, which I hereby point out to you that I should have written. It is an anagram type of solution.

I cannot let this pass without comment. In #96 you asked:

"What is the statistical probability that you will find a serial killerīs name in a mustard tin on a murder site"?

In response, #98, Steve said;

"one assumes we are meant to either see these [Emily Birrell or Jane Kelly] as anagrams or its the surname we are meant to look at".

In your response to Steve, #100, not only did you not correct his use of the phrase "anagrams" you decided to mislead by saying:

"I meant all of the given names and the surname. And the use of all the letters in the mustard tin."

As we later discovered, your phrase "all the letters in the mustard tin" was intended to indicate both the names and addresses written on the pawn tickets but we now know that even that was not true and you were not using "all the letters in the mustard tin" because there are some letters that you have not used, thus we are not talking about anagrams at all.

In #102, Steve asked for clarification of your post #100 by saying:

"one assumes as an anagram type solution?"

He didn't know whether the solution was an anagram or not, he was relying on you to tell him. So your answer in #103:

"Exactly. An anagram for a complete, full name with all the given names and the surname."

was untrue and very misleading. Because you always knew that it was not "An anagram".

You now try to pretend that you were trying to convey that it was an "anagram type solution" and not an anagram but that is most certainly not what your post was saying.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;390597]

That is not valid in the context in which the statement was posted.
Ah so you quote a source in support of an hypothesis, having not fully examined it.
Very poor research, that is not how a reputable scientist works.

However Pierre, it is all about context and given the context you were writing in, you were comparing to something completely different, giving an impression they contained the same type of information.
That is patiently untrue!

Of course it is the same type of information: it is giving people a chance to ID the killer.

That may well be, we cannot know if the hypothesis is valid as you have not provided details, to say you have proved to yourself is not scientifically valid as you should know.

The issue I have and I will repeat it again and again is that given the context of your statement that the tin contained biographical data, the same as Rader had left, require more than a name, of which I repeat there is no scientific proof that such exists.

It is the same type of information. You do understand this, donīt you?

Certainly it is a much longer communication!

And your point is?

That the pawn tickets in the mustard tin was a more advanced and intelligent communication without a lot of redundant letters and a more direct communication since it was left on a murder site.

Here we really do disagree!
That may be true in some circumstances, however a name on its on is very limiting; many will have exactly the same name at an given point in history.

Thank you for pointing out that interesting factor to me, Steve. I havenīt been thinking about it. But the name left in the mustard tin is unique in the world. There has only been one single person with that name in history.

Therefore such is not biographical information, it is a random name with nothing to link it to anything else.

Since you write this, I must consider that it was not random at all.

Again the issue is the context of the posting.
The inference was it contained the same type of information as that in the Rader communication. It does not!

Are you capable of flexible thinking, Steve? If you are, you can clearly see that I define names, addresses and professions as biographical data. If you donīt like that and donīt agree, at least you are capable of understanding what I mean and tell you in all honesty.

Sorry Pierre, the Rader communication is a completely different creature to the alleged 1888 message which you claim to have found.

My view is even clearer the statement was highly misleading.

I am not one of the ripperologistīs suspects, Steve. Please do not treat me like one. It makes the discussion impossible.

Good points Pierre.

I should have been more precise with the terms used, I will expand.

Actually said secure accurate and testable

Secure taken to mean of known Provence, provably not a fake and safe in that it cannot be altered.

These are concepts not meaningful to history. We use reliability and validity instead.

Accurate in that the details in the source are not demonstrably wrong, for instance a document which claimed Stride was killed after Eddowes would not be accurate.

And what is the point with that?

Testable, Yes I really could have used a better term.

I mean that others can look at the source and asses it, while not all those whom do so may agree with your conclusions about the source, they should be able to see how you arrived at a conclusion.

You are talking about intersubjectivity. And that is absolutely hopeless within ripperology. People are not in agreement about the sources and when they are, it is often wrong. So in this case, I prefer to go my own way and let the sources kick back.

hope that is clearer.

all the best

steve

Thanks for pointing out to me that there has never existed anyone else with that name in history. Just for fun, I tried some other names now. In some cases you get more than one million hits.

But that name is unique.

Thank you Steve. You contribute to the case. I will not forget that.

I think you are by far the best and most advanced poster here.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Of course it is the same type of information: it is giving people a chance to ID the killer.

This is completely untrue.

If you disagree please tell me how the inclusion of the names "Jane Kelly" and "Emily Birrell" along with the addresses of "Dorset Street" and "White's Row" on the pawn ticket gave anyone a chance to ID the killer.

Even if you are told it's a puzzle in which the killer's name is hidden (which the killer did not do), it's impossible to know if you have ever solved it correctly.

[David Orsam]

It is the same type of information. You do understand this, donīt you?

No, it's absolutely different. Rader's is in the form of a puzzle which looks like a puzzle. Everyone who saw it immediately knew it was a puzzle to be solved. On the other hand, not a single person who saw or heard of the pawn tickets thought it was a puzzle because it does not look like a puzzle.

You do understand this don't you?

[David Orsam]

That the pawn tickets in the mustard tin was a more advanced and intelligent communication without a lot of redundant letters and a more direct communication since it was left on a murder site.

How can it be a "more advanced and intelligent communication" if not a single person understood it to be a communication and if no-one could ever possibly have understood what was being communicated?

You obviously don't understand Rader's puzzle. You have to be able to circle the relevant letters to form a word, so you can't just pick any number of letters at random and say you've found a word which is what you are telling us is the solution to the Whitechapel killer's "puzzle".

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390653]

How can it be a "more advanced and intelligent communication" if not a single person understood it to be a communication and if no-one could ever possibly have understood what was being communicated?

Because it looked normal.

(And you, David, does not know if anyone understood it).

[David Orsam]

Because it looked normal.

That's exactly the point. It looked like a normal pawn ticket, not a communication from the killer so everyone treated it like a normal pawn ticket which made it an utterly useless form of communication.

And you haven't answered my question as to how anyone could possibly have understood what was being communicated.

As for your comment "(And you, David, does not know if anyone understood it)", yes I do Pierre. Feel free to prove me wrong by identifying a single person who did but you won't be able to do it. You are the only person in the world who thinks it was some form of communication. Doesn't that tell you something?

[Pierre]

That's exactly the point. It looked like a normal pawn ticket, not a communication from the killer so everyone treated it like a normal pawn ticket which made it an utterly useless form of communication.

And you haven't answered my question as to how anyone could possibly have understood what was being communicated.

As for your comment "(And you, David, does not know if anyone understood it)", yes I do Pierre. Feel free to prove me wrong by identifying a single person who did but you won't be able to do it. You are the only person in the world who thinks it was some form of communication. Doesn't that tell you something?

I have absolutely no interest at all in "proving" anything to someone like you, David.

[David Orsam]

I have absolutely no interest at all in "proving" anything to someone like you, David.

If you could prove me wrong, Pierre, you would do it in a heartbeat.

The fact of the matter is you can't prove me wrong and while it is very amusing that you want to give the impression that you could prove me wrong if you had an "interest" in doing so, it is no more than you being typically and transparently disingenuous.

[David Orsam]

You are the only person in the world who thinks it was some form of communication. Doesn't that tell you something?

This is what you should be focusing on Pierre.

As the only person in the entire world who has ever lived who thinks that there is a hidden message in the pawn tickets, does that really not send you a message of its own loud and clear?

[Pierre]

This is what you should be focusing on Pierre.

As the only person in the entire world who has ever lived who thinks that there is a hidden message in the pawn tickets, does that really not send you a message of its own loud and clear?

What are you worried about, David?

[David Orsam]

What are you worried about, David?

I'm worried about you Pierre, if you really want to know the truth.

[Elamarna]

Of course it is the same type of information: it is giving people a chance to ID the killer.

OH PIERRE, it is not the same and you know it, the continual failure to admit mistakes demonstrates immature, inflexible thinking.

It is the same type of information. You do understand this, donīt you?

It is not comparable, you were comparing it to the data in Rader, you have not even tried to address this issue, so be it. We will not agree on this!

That the pawn tickets in the mustard tin was a more advanced and intelligent communication without a lot of redundant letters and a more direct communication since it was left on a murder site.

Please provide evidence to back up these claims, that is what scientist do my friend, a claim with out supporting data is no claim at all.

Thank you for pointing out that interesting factor to me, Steve. I havenīt been thinking about it. But the name left in the mustard tin is unique in the world. There has only been one single person with that name in history.

Really?

How can you possible claim that this is the only time that name has ever been used?

What evidence do you have to support such an utterly outlandish claim as that?

You have checked every name ever recorded in any historical source anywhere in the world have you?

Considering that much of this will be in non digital format the research involved would take years, you have done this have you?

Are you capable of flexible thinking, Steve? If you are, you can clearly see that I define names, addresses and professions as biographical data. If you donīt like that and donīt agree, at least you are capable of understanding what I mean and tell you in all honesty.

yes I am; however it appears you are not today.

I am not one of the ripperologistīs suspects, Steve. Please do not treat me like one. It makes the discussion impossible.

MY Dear Pierre, I was not rude in that comment, however I was honest in my view, I find your statement misleading, your response is therefore very odd

These are concepts not meaningful to history. We use reliability and validity instead.



And what is the point with that?



You are talking about intersubjectivity. And that is absolutely hopeless within ripperology. People are not in agreement about the sources and when they are, it is often wrong. So in this case, I prefer to go my own way and let the sources kick back.

Answer all 3 points,
it does not matter what we call the criteria we apply, what I suggested is very much the same as yours in its meaning

Basically my friend once again you are claiming only your approach will work.
However that approach is full of personal views, hypotheses which you suggest, and decide yourself are valid, no peer review or checking at all.

The approach is often not in the slightest scientific

Thanks for pointing out to me that there has never existed anyone else with that name in history. Just for fun, I tried some other names now. In some cases you get more than one million hits.

But that name is unique.

See my point above, and of course I was correct, your research amounts to a computer search.
You cannot check all names ever used on a computer, what nonsense to suggest you can.

Sadly Pierre you are adding little to any debate at present, which I personally find a great shame.


Steve

[Pierre]

I'm worried about you Pierre, if you really want to know the truth.

I already know that.