Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5141
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay: His 3rd sentence

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:41 pm
:D :D :D Looking forward to the show. I will be there, and will be happy to provide my opinion on the statistical analysis.

Well, don’t hold your breath because the likelihood of such a show actually taking place is slim next to none. It’s not in their best interest to come here and tangle with me on something that will require a great deal of energy and thought when they prefer to channel their energy and effort in other projects. Sure, they may like to come and make a point or two and pose some rhetorical questions of a friendly nature in order to broaden/heighten our perspectives, but in the end, it would prove fruitless. Besides, they know it’s not in their best interest to tangle with me when I’m passionate about something. Also, the matching of the character proposed by Bradley is only a footnote to the whole Kinderhook story. It’s just an observation that has been explored and considered. It has not been proven and is only a theory based on suggestion. With that said, I think it is worthy of every consideration and am glad it has been proposed. But it remains only a theory.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5141
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay: His 3rd sentence

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:41 pm
Agree totally. The argument that the plurals in the testimony can be satisfied by a singular match is very, very weak, in my opinion.

Indeed, the plural and the singular clash in ways that simply make it untenable to justify Bradley’s *SINGLE* match in order to satisfy the testimony given in eyewitness accounting. I trust RFM will recognize that for what it is. Right, RFM? When police or detectives take reports for a crime scene, they are very careful to note differences in the singular and plural. Was there one robber or more? Do you see what I’m driving at? The eyewitness testimony is that there are plural matches or multiple robbers -- not just one match or one robber acting alone. An argument to justify a singular only match can be fiercely batted down by using simple steps of logic and reason. Now I realize the example I just gave is a little like comparing apples and oranges but the general idea is the same. Math is math and numbers don’t lie. And apples and oranges are both fruit. So...
Post Reply