Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    Was that a Freudian slip? I never suggested Arthur lied to Paul Dodd when naming Eddie. Quite the reverse. There is no doubt he did name Eddie as one of two electricians who knew about the theft. I don't need to know them all individually to know this much, so I'm not the one slinging baseless accusations around.
    In brief, I was referring to your post here:
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Arthur was the one in charge of the rewiring job on 9th and 10th March. The job was finished by lunchtime on the second day. The others who had been at the house and knew that Eddie had found something were understandably not going to give chapter and verse about it to Arthur if they could help it.
    where you claim the crew would have covered for Eddie. Then immediately afterwards you think up some hypothetical scenario about Eddie, whom you're always - with no evidence at all - willing to paint as a thief and a liar (and a very dumb one at that), where you claim the crew might NOT cover for him.

    So I can see why you'd scold RJ Palmer for actually trying to follow your argument and refer back to some of your older posts that contradict whatever you're claiming on a given day.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      Hi Caz,

      DNA matches are not the same thing, because the odds are determined before the match (or not match) is done. They have DNA from the crime scene, and they have DNA from a suspect (or in a database). What they don't know is if the DNA matches, so the hypothesis before the test is "if it's not you, there won't be correspondence between the DNA and if it is you it will be nearly zero probability to match by chance".

      Let's use coin tosses as a simple illustration, and I did this in my lecture yesterday, where there's around 100 students in the class (I called it my "psychic's test".) Just before the lecture started, while the students were coming in I flipped a coin 5 times to get a pattern of Heads and Tails. I then asked all the students to write down a series of heads and tails as I said I wanted to find the 2 to 4 psychics in the class (they are my database). As I called out my pattern, they sat down when they got it wrong. In the end, there were 2 left. See, before I called out my sequence, we all had patterns (like DNA), the chance of getting 5 correct is 3.125%, so in a class of around 100 I expected in the vicinity of 3 to "match" by chance. And I got 2 (my pattern was HTHHH), not quite 3, but in the range of what I predicted based upon chance odds.

      But, let's say I was allowed to look at all the students sequences first, before I made my prediction of how many there would be. Now I know the events.

      How many would I predict then? Would I base it on the chance odds (so 3.125%) or would I base it on the fact I know 2 of them have the same as me?

      - Jeff
      Briefly for now, Jeff, I know all that, but I was merely trying to say that we had a shed load of actual data long before anyone even began looking at the odds of three specific elements of that data: floorboards/Fountains Road/phonecall coming together by chance alone.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Briefly for now, Jeff, I know all that, but I was merely trying to say that we had a shed load of actual data long before anyone even began looking at the odds of three specific elements of that data: floorboards/Fountains Road/phonecall coming together by chance alone.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Hi Caz,

        Yah, as I say, the evidence and how that relates to the diary is a different matter, and not what my posts are about. I'm only commenting on the way probability is being applied with regards to the foorboards and the phone call. All the rest, such as what evidence is available for interpretation, doesn't impact upon that issue. I just thought it important to point out the difference in the situation when it comes to DNA because that's not a similar situation to the floorboards and phone calls.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • All this talk of odds and coincidence reminds me of a story I read a while back about the song Eleanor Rigby.
          The song originally started off with the working name, Daisy Hawkins.
          Paul McCartney changed the name to Eleanor Rigby, which he said was part to do with Eleanor Bron who they had recently filmed the movie Help with.
          Many years later the grave of a lady called Eleanor Rigby was found in the churchyard where Paul McCartney used to sunbathe and generally hung out as a youth.
          Now many have said since the discovery Ah so that’s where you got the name from.
          McCartney says that it’s a pure coincidence, the best he would concede is that perhaps he picked up the name subconsciously, but he doubted it because he chose the name due to the actress.
          He went on to say that if people want to waste their time looking for a fictional character then that’s up to them.

          What are the chances of that?
          It’s a very uncommon name and the grave can be directly tied to McCartney by location.
          In recent years the deeds to the graveyard plot have actually been auctioned as part of Beatles memorabilia.
          But the coincidence means little, it’s the fans that have decided otherwise.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
            All this talk of odds and coincidence reminds me of a story I read a while back about the song Eleanor Rigby.
            The song originally started off with the working name, Daisy Hawkins.
            Paul McCartney changed the name to Eleanor Rigby, which he said was part to do with Eleanor Bron who they had recently filmed the movie Help with.
            Many years later the grave of a lady called Eleanor Rigby was found in the churchyard where Paul McCartney used to sunbathe and generally hung out as a youth.
            Now many have said since the discovery Ah so that’s where you got the name from.
            McCartney says that it’s a pure coincidence, the best he would concede is that perhaps he picked up the name subconsciously, but he doubted it because he chose the name due to the actress.
            He went on to say that if people want to waste their time looking for a fictional character then that’s up to them.

            What are the chances of that?
            It’s a very uncommon name and the grave can be directly tied to McCartney by location.
            In recent years the deeds to the graveyard plot have actually been auctioned as part of Beatles memorabilia.
            But the coincidence means little, it’s the fans that have decided otherwise.
            So we all just have a case of group motivated reasoning?

            Like you have shown in your Eleanor Rigby example, there is enough of a coincidence for people to believe it is more than just a coincidence.

            McCartney admitted he has spent time in that church as a teenager with John Lennon looking at headstones, as John had a relative buried there. He conceded he could have been influenced sub-consciously by a name he once saw - embedded deep in his memory. He accepts that as being possible. He believed he was inspired by other means, but he cannot 100% rule out that it was a gift from the sub-conscious memory.

            I choose to believe that is exactly it and he cannot say it isn’t conclusively either.

            Nuance is an important thing.
            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

            Comment


            • Likewise, George Harrison tried to claim sub conscious copyright infringement (Hari Krishna etc). Bizarre.
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • Cryptomnesia - Wikipedia
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                  Likewise, George Harrison tried to claim sub conscious copyright infringement (Hari Krishna etc). Bizarre.
                  Hi Al.
                  Well he would, as you say, there’s a copyright infringement hanging over him.
                  There’s no jeopardy at all about writing a song about any deceased person.
                  Joe Meek thrived on it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                    Yeah, it's a possibility Dave. Or he ripped off a catchy tune. Which he definitely did. Crypto-my-arse-nesia.

                    It's like Father Ted and the B-side.
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Bridey Murphy - Wikipedia
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Stan Freberg The Quest For Bridey Hammerschlgen - YouTube
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • The Search for Bridey Murphy (1956) Full Movie HQ - YouTube
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Very interesting, Dave.

                            Rather makes me wonder if Maybrick experienced it when he wrote 'Oh costly intercourse of death'?

                            Personally, there's a line (which right now I forget) which periodically comes to mind and I can't decide whether it is from Sylvia Plath or whether I just thought it up from scratch. Why would I think it was Plath if it was me?

                            Who knows.

                            Ike
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                              Very interesting, Dave.

                              Rather makes me wonder if Maybrick experienced it when he wrote 'Oh costly intercourse of death'?

                              Personally, there's a line (which right now I forget) which periodically comes to mind and I can't decide whether it is from Sylvia Plath or whether I just thought it up from scratch. Why would I think it was Plath if it was me?

                              Who knows.

                              Ike
                              Ah ha - I have forced myself to remember it: it is "The blood flood is the flood of love".

                              And just like James Maybrick, I have remembered it (possibly 'as mine') slightly incorrectly: "The blood flood is the flood of my love".

                              How very interesting ...

                              Ike
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                                Ah ha - I have forced myself to remember it: it is "The blood flood is the flood of love".

                                And just like James Maybrick, I have remembered it (possibly 'as mine') slightly incorrectly: "The blood flood is the flood of my love".

                                How very interesting ...

                                Ike
                                Not, ‘Love set you going like a fat gold watch…’?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X