Hutch in the 1911 Census?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Ben
    Commisioner
    • Feb 2008
    • 6843

    #1516
    I'd be extremely surprised if Ms. Iremonger didn't examine the originals, Gareth. That's all.

    Hi Mike,

    I'm afraid I can't answer those questions. I do not examine documents professionally. I've only noted that those who do are strongly of the opinion that original documents are necessary for conducting a proper analysis, and that computerized images aren't nearly as suitable for the job. Crystal and others can weigh in on the particulars, although I have a feeling she has done so already.

    Best regards,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 04-26-2009, 04:07 PM.

    Comment

    • Crystal

      #1517
      Sam Flynn, light of my posting life, I want you to explain something to me: I detect that you are less than enthusiastic about an examination of the originals - how curious! Surely you want the real answer here...or is it just yours that interests you? Michael: if you got your head out of your posterior for one bleedin second, you'd see that the answers to your questions are right here, on the thread from Hell. Ben: You are, as always, entirely correct. As for Miss Iremonger looking at copies: Please, stop being so bloody silly, and Flynn - put your toys back in the pram?

      Comment

      • Sam Flynn
        Casebook Supporter
        • Feb 2008
        • 13322

        #1518
        Originally posted by Crystal View Post
        Sam Flynn, light of my posting life, I want you to explain something to me: I detect that you are less than enthusiastic about an examination of the originals - how curious!
        I resent and refute that shoddy implication.
        Surely you want the real answer here...or is it just yours that interests you?
        I am, by training, inclination and vocation, a scientist. I am only interested in the facts - be they the facts surrounding Ms Iremonger's examination (was it at Kew? did she use originals or photocopies?), or the facts concerning the value of comparing originals versus scanned images in the context of signature comparison. I'm not in the least bit interested in speculation, personal wish-fulfillment nor in championing the merits, or otherwise, of experts.
        Flynn - put your toys back in the pram
        I went from infancy almost directly to middle-age, so I gave up toys long, long ago.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment

        • The Good Michael
          Assistant Commissioner
          • Feb 2008
          • 3773

          #1519
          Crystal,

          If the answer is right here, how come both Ben and I can't see it? Let's say you find the originals and look at them. With me so far? I know it's challenging for you, but stay with me. Then you post your opinions. What does that tell us? It tells us your opinions. Suppose you then created an image of the documents and posted it to corroborate your opinions. Still there? Good. How do your copies of the originals become more important than the copies we have? If you can't send us all the originals to look at, then anything you do is invalid... unless copies can be good representations of the originals. And we're back to my question, aren't we. Now remove your head from your nether regions and explain yourself.

          Cheers,

          Mike
          huh?

          Comment

          • Ben
            Commisioner
            • Feb 2008
            • 6843

            #1520
            It tells us your opinions. Suppose you then created an image of the documents and posted it to corroborate your opinions
            Not sure why'd she do that, Mike (?).

            Document examiners assess original documents. They wouldn't send anything to "us" unless we were in a position to pass critical assessment on their findings, and we'd only be in that position if we were document examiners ourselves, which we're not. So sending us copies to "corroborate (Crystal's) opinion" (assessing her assessment, in other words) would be an exercise in futility. Nobody's suggsting that copies are completely useless. It has simply been observed that they aren't nearly as suitable for the task as the originals.

            Ben
            Last edited by Ben; 04-26-2009, 04:37 PM.

            Comment

            • The Good Michael
              Assistant Commissioner
              • Feb 2008
              • 3773

              #1521
              Ben,

              You're a broken record. I want to know why they are infinitely better, so much better in fact, that I will do a 180 when I find out the answers. Let Crystal answer. I know you two are entwined, but she's a big girl.

              Mike
              huh?

              Comment

              • Sam Flynn
                Casebook Supporter
                • Feb 2008
                • 13322

                #1522
                Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                I want to know why they are infinitely better, so much better in fact, that I will do a 180 when I find out the answers. Let Crystal answer.
                Rather, let those adherents of the "originals are better than scans" school of thought point to some empirical research which shows what the differences are, and in which specific contexts do the differences become relevant?

                If that can't be easily done, then at least will someone finally confirm precisely which materials Iremonger had at her disposal when she made her comparison?

                Until and unless both questions are answered, we will be stuck with an eternal game of "opinion ping-pong", I fear.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment

                • Crystal

                  #1523
                  I have explained myself Mike, several times. I know this will mean an immense effort for you but just go back a couple of pages - where I set out exactly what I'm doing. If that is beyond you, I'm sorry. You seem to be missing the point by several hundred miles. We don't need more bloody copies: who cares who makes them? We have already gone as far as we can with bloody copies - that's the point. As for the difference, it's immense. If it wasn't, I wouldn't waste valuable time doing it. What other reason do you think I might have? Do tell.

                  Comment

                  • The Good Michael
                    Assistant Commissioner
                    • Feb 2008
                    • 3773

                    #1524
                    Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                    As for the difference, it's immense.
                    Well, that answers it all. You know that the originals are immensely different. I'm sold. Toppy isn't Hutch everyone!

                    Mike
                    huh?

                    Comment

                    • Stephen Thomas
                      Chief Inspector
                      • Feb 2008
                      • 1728

                      #1525
                      Crystal,

                      Don't forget to buy a loaf of bread to feed the ducks if you're going to visit Kew Gardens. I used to go there all the time in the 1960s and 1970s when it cost one (token) penny to get in. A wonderful place
                      allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                      Comment

                      • Crystal

                        #1526
                        Mike, your hysterical tone is quite astonishing - are we all going to hear exactly how I've earned this emnity from you, or would you prefer to keep it to yourself? I fail to see what a hypothetical'entwinement' with Ben has to do with anything. I call it a cheap shot. As to my 'opinion': when did empirical data become a matter of opinion, exactly? In case you care, much of what I will do at Kew will involve measurements. My methodology will be included in the outcme. I have no wish or intention of obscuring anything - indeed, that is rather the point. Or did you think I'd be doing my nails and writing 'Crystal 'n' Ben 4 Eva' in my heart-filled notebook? Hmm?
                        Last edited by Guest; 04-26-2009, 07:24 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Sam Flynn
                          Casebook Supporter
                          • Feb 2008
                          • 13322

                          #1527
                          Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                          As to my 'opinion': when did empirical data become a matter of opinion, exactly?
                          Where are the empirical data that prove that viewing originals makes a significant difference to the specific matter of signature analysis, compared to viewing scanned images?
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment

                          • Crystal

                            #1528
                            What? I trust you're not entirely dense, Flynn? I had you down as an intelligent man - in all seriousness. If you really can't work this out for yourself, I'll be surprised.

                            Comment

                            • Sam Flynn
                              Casebook Supporter
                              • Feb 2008
                              • 13322

                              #1529
                              Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                              What? I trust you're not entirely dense, Flynn? I had you down as an intelligent man - in all seriousness.
                              Thank you - and you're right. I'm not entirely dense.
                              If you really can't work this out for yourself, I'll be surprised.
                              I don't want to work it out, though, Crystal - I want to see proof. For anyone to claim that "originals are best" then I presume there must be existing studies that demonstrate as much; if not, it would be simplicity itself to devise an experiment to test it. For example:

                              One group of document examiners are given original documents containing signatures to compare (Group A), and another group (Group B) are given scanned images of signatures. Their accuracy of both groups in matching the signatures is scored and the results compared. A simple statistical test will show whether there's a significant difference in the accuracy of Group A compared to Group B.

                              Not rocket science, but science nonetheless.
                              Last edited by Sam Flynn; 04-26-2009, 08:07 PM.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment

                              • Ben
                                Commisioner
                                • Feb 2008
                                • 6843

                                #1530
                                Hi Crystal,

                                It's more than enough for me that the individuals with actual experience and background in this topic are those who recognise that it is far more desirable to study original documents than scanned copies, and that number naturally includes Dr. Leander, whose opinion we've already discussed. I wonder what the alternative is supposed to be? That document examiners the world over all conspired to create a grand "pretense" that the originals are preferable to scans?

                                And as you say, you will be including your methodology in the results.

                                Best regards,
                                Ben
                                Last edited by Ben; 04-26-2009, 08:16 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X