Let there be light!

[Joshua Rogan]

The Greeks could have invented the steam machine in ancient times already. They did not.

Er... Actually they did

http://kotaku.com/5742457/the-ancien...nding-machines

[Joshua Rogan]

Hello Pierre,

No, what I'm saying is that scientific facts don't change over time.

Sorry John, I think you'll find that's no longer true...

https://www.newscientist.com/article...life-of-facts/

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

No, what I'm saying is that scientific facts don't change over time. Thus, the world has always been spherical, even at a time when the ancients believed it to be flat. Equally, rigor mortis has the same definition today as it did in 1888, so by implying otherwise you fell into error.

So you have never heard of Kuhn and the paradigm shifts?

"A paradigm shift, as identified by American physicist Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn contrasted these shifts, which characterize a scientific revolution, to the activity of normal science, which he described as scientific work done within a prevailing framework (or paradigm). In this context, the word "paradigm" is used in its original meaning, as "example" (Greek: παράδειγμα)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift (I don´t like Wikipedia but it will do for this)

And you mean that "democracy" was the same thing in ancient Greece as it is today in the UK?

And rigor mortis, having both physical and chemical dimensions, was examined and researched in the same way, with the same instruments, scales and technology, in 1888 as it is today in 2016?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, David. It is one of two points in time given by Dr Bond, with the word "OR" in between. And since there is a witness hearing Kelly singing at about one o´clock, she must have been alive at about one o´clock. And that might be the very simple reason why the word "OR" occurs in the Bond-source.

You told me that Prater could have been mistaken about the time. So the same thing is true of Mary Ann Cox right?

Consequently, it's not true to say that Kelly "must" have been alive about one o'clock. As a result you were not entitled to unilaterally change Dr Bond's conclusions in your timeline.

And the word "OR" appears in Dr Bond's report because he wasn't sure. It's got nothing to do with Mary Ann Cox.

[David Orsam]

There are two sources (2) saying that Kelly was singing at "about one o´clock". Be very careful to note the word "about", David.

You're the one who needs to be careful about noting the word "about" Pierre. You were the one who decided that Dr Bond's conclusion as to time of death was wrong on the basis that Kelly must have been alive at 1am because she was singing at 1am. Now you say she was only singing at "about" 1am.

Hence she could have been singing at 12.45am and murdered at 1am couldn't she?

So remind me why you changed Dr Bond's conclusions again?

[Pierre]

You told me that Prater could have been mistaken about the time. So the same thing is true of Mary Ann Cox right?

Consequently, it's not true to say that Kelly "must" have been alive about one o'clock. As a result you were not entitled to unilaterally change Dr Bond's conclusions in your timeline.

And the word "OR" appears in Dr Bond's report because he wasn't sure. It's got nothing to do with Mary Ann Cox.

Everyone can be mistaken about everything.

But the sources do not look like that. They have only one indication of it, and this is when Prater (and not Cox) states that she could have been mistaken about the light in Kelly´s room. This comment exists in the source.

Otherwise, things "could have", are not of any significance.

I do not change anything. I interpret a source. You don´t understand that. And yes, Kelly must have been alive then. If you are an historian.

[David Orsam]

Then there is ONE source (inquest) giving the statement of Prater that she did not hear any singing "at" one o´clock. [U]Be very careful also to note the word "at", David.

Right, so no singing "at" one o'clock which means Kelly could have been dead at one o'clock doesn't it?

So remind me why you changed Dr Bond's conclusions on the basis that dead people don't sing?

[Pierre]

Er... Actually they did

http://kotaku.com/5742457/the-ancien...nding-machines

No, that is not a modern steam machine. It is the beginnings of an engine.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Right, so no singing "at" one o'clock which means Kelly could have been dead at one o'clock doesn't it?

So remind me why you changed Dr Bond's conclusions on the basis that dead people don't sing?

Two sources worth more than one due to reliability problems for Praters hearing and difference between at and about (all of the sources are high up in the hierarchy of sources). No change, but interpretation. You can read what I wrote about it. It is there. Those are my interpretations. Why do you need to hear the same things over and over again?

[David Orsam]

Finally, there is another source (police investigation) where Prater does not even talk about singing as an issue at all.

Well she hadn't heard any singing so why would she "talk about singing as an issue"?

She only spoke about singing at the inquest because she was asked about it.

[Pierre]

Well she hadn't heard any singing so why would she "talk about singing as an issue"?

She only spoke about singing at the inquest because she was asked about it.

So that is no good source for drawing the conclusion that Prater heard no singing at one o´clock.

[David Orsam]

But in this source, she claims to having been not in her room and not in the house where this room is situated, but outside of this house until 1.30. During the time when she was outside the house, she spoke to McCarthy.

At the inquest she clarified on oath that she was outside the house until 1.20. She said on oath that she didn't speak to anyone. She said she was back in her room at 1.30.

You always prefer evidence given on oath don't you?

[John G]

So you have never heard of Kuhn and the paradigm shifts?

"A paradigm shift, as identified by American physicist Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn contrasted these shifts, which characterize a scientific revolution, to the activity of normal science, which he described as scientific work done within a prevailing framework (or paradigm). In this context, the word "paradigm" is used in its original meaning, as "example" (Greek: παράδειγμα)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift (I don´t like Wikipedia but it will do for this)

And you mean that "democracy" was the same thing in ancient Greece as it is today in the UK?

And rigor mortis, having both physical and chemical dimensions, was examined and researched in the same way, with the same instruments, scales and technology, in 1888 as it is today in 2016?

Regards, Pierre

Well didn't Kuhn argue that when a scientific paradigm was replaced by a new one the new one was always better, not just different?

But this is all somewhat irrelevant. Please explain how you think the 1888 definition of rigor mortis conflicts with the modern definition?

[David Orsam]

And the next explanatory factor is the talking with McCarthy:

People who talk to people tend to listen less attentively to other sounds going on in the background than people who are not talking to someone and instead listen to hear sounds.

This is my interpretation of the sources. Show me a better one, and I will surely change my interpretation.

It doesn't work though does it Pierre because Prater said on oath (a) that she didn't speak to anyone and (b) "I should have heard any one if singing in the deceaseds room at 1 o'clock, there was no one singing."

As a better explanation, how about there was no singing in Mary's room at 1 o'clock?

[David Orsam]

That is my destiny, David, since everyone is afraid of what they might hear in the future.

So everything I say must be disputed from the beginning.

Otherwise the small field of ripperology may be destroyed.

Don't be ridiculous Pierre.