Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
I am not interested in dismissing Biggs. The interesting thing is that he is part of the discourse about the discourse. He is saying things similar to those who saw the wounds but he was not there. The reason for it is that he is not part of the history about the sources. But you, who think that the "old sources" are to old and not reliable, trust a source from you own time that will soon be old and not reliable, even more so since he was never there.
Do you mean that all research about the past is meaningless?
The practical point of view is uncertain, if that is the view of Biggs. You need systematical data. I asked you for it, but you prefer your expert. Of course you do. You do not understand statistics and so you have no choice but to refer to one single person and his statements.
And the practical point of view was also the point of view of Dr Phillips and Dr Bond et al. They created a small discourse. Why is it like it is?
And how come that the opinions were "flawed" in particular ways?
And how come they guessed that the killer was left handed or right handed? What is the basis for that talk? What is the basis for the discourse?
And so the discourse says the person could have be "either" left or right handed. How come the discourse contains that "either" perspective?
Trevor - but they "challenge" the sources with the same type of arguments. How come?
It is no "mystery". It is a set of real existing sources left to us by the past. The sources describe real events.
The theories are flawed, yes. But many of the sources from the past are not. They are in the original and many of them are very reliable and valid.
I do not accept those theories. But the sources from the past tell us something important. They are the discourse about what the doctors thought about the handedness of the killer. WHY did they think what they thought? WHY is the discourse like it is?
Is it because "it is too old"?
Is it because "it is flawed"?
No, Trevor. Your arguments are not valid. They generate irrelevant arguments and tautologies and they can not explain why the doctors differ in their statements.
WHY did they differ in their statements in that particular way?
I am not arguing, and have no intention of doing so. I am telling you what are facts. I am telling you that many facets of the original medical evidence have now been proved to now not be correct.
They differed because they were simply guessing.