Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[John G]

Hi Steve,

I only say that if you chose between "truth" and "fairy-tale", you must make a scientific choice.

When any source is not scientifically proven to be "truth", naturally you must chose the other category.

I donīt know what your idea is about me. But as you can see, I am not a ripperologist so I do not accuse dead people of being murderers without a scientific reason.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I don't really understand this post. You imply that any evidence that isn't "scientifically proven" is a "fairy-tale". However, a fairy-tale suggests a myth or fantasy, but theories-such as Einstein's theory of general relativity- are not necessarily wrong, and therefore "fairy-tales", simply because they're unproven.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;374212]Hi Pierre,

I don't really understand this post. You imply that any evidence that isn't "scientifically proven" is a "fairy-tale".

Hi John,

Certainly not. But David gave me only two choices.

He used the simple comment I gave on one of his posts, where I said: "Some people like to hear the "truth", and some like fairy tales." The comment only had to do with him suggesting I donīt "understand human beings" or something silly like that.

Using that simple and meaningless comment he asked a question and I gave him exactly the answer he wanted.

That is the starting point for this meaningless categorization.

However, a fairy-tale suggests a myth or fantasy, but theories-such as Einstein's theory of general relativity- are not necessarily wrong, and therefore "fairy-tales", simply because they're unproven.

Naturally, I agree with you. But when I discuss with David, the discussions tend to become meaningless, which is a result of his strategies. He has been trying to destroy what I write for a long time. He does it by using many silly methods. Getting the discussions off topic is one. Lying about me is another. And here is the example of making incorrect use of two meaningless categories.

And now he has taken everyone off topic again. So it is only a matter of time before I have to ignore him again.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374206]

I don't write fairy tales Pierre but you have now admitted that you do.

I donīt "write fairy tales" David.

I didn't give two exclusive classifications at all

.

Yes you do. Mine.

You said: "Some people like to hear the "truth", and some like fairy tales." I asked you which category you would put the GOGMAGOG letter in.

Of your own free will you described it as a fairy tale.

No David. I gave you the answer you wanted.

I then made the point that solving an old murder is more difficult when people post fairy tales on this forum as if they are true.

How very interesting. But you see, I have earlier explained a lot of things to you. But you have totally failed to understand them. And since you do not contribute at all to this thread, you will now be ignored.

But donīt worry. You will be satisfied in due time.

[David Orsam]

Certainly not. But David gave me only two choices.

So it's my fault now that you post fairy tales?

[Errata]

Perhaps we should go back to the classifications of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

[Pierre]

Perhaps we should go back to the classifications of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Hi Errata,

I would appreciate if we went back to the questions about coincidences, possibilities and probabilities.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Lying about me is another.

I've never lied about you Pierre and despite having made this allegation in the past you've never produced any evidence in support.

But what I've noticed is that you really don't like it when I quote your own words at you.

[DJA]

Pierre,

You once again attack people you see has "Ripperologists", yet you post far more frequently than anyone else on this site, any casual observer would conclude that you are indeed one yourself.

steve

Six months yesterday,started 43 threads,posts 6 to 7 times a day......knows nothing.....

[Ausgirl]

Hi John,

I agree with you on your comment on the signature analysis by Keppel et al.

And I would like to add that the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time.

Regards, Pierre

Are you being serious, with this?

If so, then you're very wrong, because California.

For a start.

[Errata]

Are you being serious, with this?

If so, then you're very wrong, because California.

For a start.

You think that's scary, look at Texas sometime.

[Pierre]

Are you being serious, with this?

If so, then you're very wrong, because California.

For a start.

So do you want to say that Jack the Ripper is a national or a transnational serial killer?

[Rosella]

What are you actually saying here, Pierre? Is it that, given the small geographical area of Whitechapel/Spitalfielfields, the probability is that Jack and Torso killer were acquaintances but knew nothing of each other's activities? Or are you going further and saying that they probably knew that the other was a killer?

[Ausgirl]

So do you want to say that Jack the Ripper is a national or a transnational serial killer?

No, I'm saying your claim that "the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time" is blatant nonsense.

As has been abundantly proven by veritable throngs of serial killers in California and - thank you, E - Texas. Among other locations, but those are good 'uns.

[Pierre]

No, I'm saying your claim that "the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time" is blatant nonsense.

As has been abundantly proven by veritable throngs of serial killers in California and - thank you, E - Texas. Among other locations, but those are good 'uns.

So:

1. What is the evidence for at least two different serial killers for the C-5?

2. What are the specific examples in California and Texas that you deduce
from?

3. On what specific grounds (MO? Signature? Other?) do you deduce from those serial killers?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

What are you actually saying here, Pierre? Is it that, given the small geographical area of Whitechapel/Spitalfielfields, the probability is that Jack and Torso killer were acquaintances but knew nothing of each other's activities? Or are you going further and saying that they probably knew that the other was a killer?

Hi Rosella,

No, I havenīt been discussing the dismemberment victims at all in this thread.

Regards, Pierre